BS: Drunk driving

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 01:53 PM

Precisely. Wch is why I gave up.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Smokey.
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 12:38 PM

by definition -
According to prior determination, as a given.

Exactly - but it depends whose prior determination.


"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: GUEST,Patsy Warren
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 08:36 AM

There are many things that can contribute to an accident, anything that takes a motorists concentration away from what he or she is doing can be just as much at fault as alcohol but the fact of life is police will come down like a ton of bricks on anyone if they can smell alcohol or suspect drink driving. I don't own a car but I do know me when I have had a drink or two. May be a little over confident and sometimes might take risks that I would not normally do, so knowing this I would rather opt for not drinking at all.

Then there is the aspect of prescribed medication, there is no knowing how this effects every individual who is behind the wheel of a car. How can that be monitored?

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 10:44 PM

Hmmmmm

by definition -
According to prior determination, as a given.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 04:23 PM

No problem - I was actually agreeing with you, but I think you have misinterpreted what Greg meant by "by definition". I don't think he meant that being drunk automatically makes one responsible for the accident. I can't really speak for him though.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 04:07 PM

Smokey,

The link says that the person, while drunk may not be at fault. The link uses the phrase (no fault)

In answer to a hypothetical I made earlier, making this point. Greg F said that "The 'person with alcohol' behind the wheel is BY DEFINITION at fault." Greg was wrong. By definition fault is determined by an investigation where alcohol is only one of the factors considered.

I was sure that you meant "in breach of the law." when you made that statement. But 'legally at fault' implied that you meant at fault in the accident, which contradicted what I was saying. I was discussing the syntax with you to ensure clarity.

I am glad that you and I have cleared up that misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 02:06 PM

Thank you, Ebbie. Our usage is different: to spend time in prison or jail waiting for trial is called 'being remanded in custody'. We too have short-sentence local prisons, or jails, and others for long-term prisoners anywhere in the country. But any of these could indifferently be called 'prison' or 'jail' [or even sometimes by the old-fashioned spelling 'gaol', I think].

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 12:45 PM

The difference between 'jail time' and 'prison time', at least in the way I use it, is that jail in the US is for short sentences or as a holding cell for an upcoming trial, while prison is reserved for after sentencing. In other words, when someone is sentenced to '30 days in jail', that time is normally spent in the local facility; a prison sentence usually is in terms of years rather than days and that prison can be anywhere in the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 12:26 PM

Jack - for the sake of clarity - my use of the phrase 'legally at fault' means 'in breach of the law'. I hope that helps.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 01:08 AM

These 'criminal consequences', according to the extract Jack linked to above, may include both 'prison time' and 'jail time'. There seems to be some distinction between these implied here, though they would, I am pretty sure, be regarded as entirely synonymous here in the UK.

What, please, is the difference between 'jail time' and 'prison time' in American law/usage?

{Sorry if this is a slight drift; but it appears to me a point of some semantic interest.}

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 11:45 PM

"Intoxicated Driver Not at Fault in an Accident

There may also be other types of incidents where an intoxicated driver did not cause an accident but was involved in the accident. For example, another motorist may enter into the intoxicated driver's lane of traffic and collide with the driver, causing an accident. In such a case, the intoxicated driver is not liable for the damages resulting from the accident itself; however, the intoxicated driver will be subject to the criminal consequences stemming from driving while intoxicated."

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 11:40 PM

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with, Jack. Your link seems to back up what I said: "A person may be legally at fault by being drunk, but not necessarily responsible for the accident."

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 11:14 PM

This describes AT FAULT in the sense I mean it.

Smokey, If have an example of usage of "AT Fault" in motor vehicle accidents that does not apply to either insurance or police reports, I'd be interested in reading it.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 10:47 PM

"At fault" means responsible for the accident. Doesn't it?

No, not necessarily, and please don't accuse me of calling people names.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 09:59 PM

>>A person may be legally at fault by being drunk, but not necessarily responsible for the accident. <<

"At fault" means responsible for the accident. Doesn't it?

I'll grant that drinking and driving are legally and morally wrong. Its a fact that even when not at fault for the accident they could still be charged with DUI. It is likely that SOME fault will be assigned just because of reaction times. But to say that "by definition" they are at fault it plain stupid.

"By Definition" implies that there are no exception.
There are plenty of exceptions, such as when the drunk is legally and properly stopped in a parking space and the other person hits their car.

BTW I have a life. I am having a discussion. You are calling people names.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 04:19 PM

A person may be legally at fault by being drunk, but not necessarily responsible for the accident.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 10:24 AM

Sorry, Jacko- the person who drinks and gets behind the wheel IS at fault, morally, logically, and legally. He/she is being irresponsible & is breaking the law.

Asfatr as "name calling" goes - get a life, with Kevin. We've got a drunkapologist, and an apologist for a drunkapologist.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 11:41 PM

>>Saying that the man is an apologist for drunk driving/drivers is an analysis of his stated opinion, hardly name-calling.<<

Its name calling all right. Otherwise, if you ACTUALLY wanted to say I was apologizing for drunks, you would have said "You are apologizing for drunks." But what you did do is call me a name.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 11:18 PM

Of course I took you to task. The statement was patently illogical.
"The 'person with alcohol' behind the wheel is BY DEFINITION at fault."

no

The person who caused the accident is BY DEFINITION at fault.

Think of the implications of your statement.
If no one has been drinking is no one at fault?
If both have been drinking are both at fault?
If the Drinker is parked in a parking lot and a texting teenager hits the drinker's car is the drinker still at fault?

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 09:49 AM

that drunk driving is an easy target but there are many other factors in play in many fatalities.

Which I agreed with- twice, I think but he still took me to task over "The 'person with alcohol' behind the wheel is BY DEFINITION at fault."

Kevin: Get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: kendall
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 07:50 AM

Foster Brooks is the funniest "Drunk" I ever saw. However, we know it is an act so that makes it ok. But, drunk driving is another matter and should be dealt with harshly.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 01:33 AM

"You're not going to drive in that condition, are you?"

"Of course I am! I'm in no condition to walk!"


Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 08:34 PM

And JtS did not come across as a drunkapologist, Greg, as you'll probably see if you look again. He is saying, I think, that drunk driving is an easy target but there are many other factors in play in many fatalities.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: kendall
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 07:52 PM

I disagree. Your made up name is clearly designed to denigrate.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 09:04 AM

Saying that the man is an apologist for drunk driving/drivers is an analysis of his stated opinion, hardly name-calling.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: kendall
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 08:01 AM

You would have to stand in line!

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: LadyJean
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 01:08 AM

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania asks would be drivers what the legal blood alcohol content is. I kept failing the question, because I know I can't drink.

I once hung up on my sister because she was talking on the phone while driving. I don't do that one either.

I listened to Sean bloody Hannity for 30 minutes until I was someplace where I could do things with the radio. If that man had a neck I would love to wring it.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: kendall
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 09:23 PM

Name calling is a no no here.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 08:56 PM

Eating and driving

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 07:06 PM

About time that smoking while driving was made a culpable offence as well. I shudder to think how many accidents must have been caused by loss of concentration while lighting up that Marlboro ...

Eating while driving too, how can you unpeel a banana and concentrate on the road at the same time ? Or even unwrap a candy bar ?

Arguing while driving, how many accidents must have been caused by loss of concentration induced by the incessant nagging of an outraged spouse ? Prosecute them both.

Picking one's nose while driving, let's nail that one, I see drivers doing it all the time, a time bomb waiting to explode imo ...

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 06:48 PM

Going back to my grandniece's 10-year sentence for drunk driving in which her boyfriend was killed- my local paper today has an Anchorage, Alaska, story about a man who was convicted of criminally negligent homicide and was released after serving a little over two years of an 8-year sentence.

From the paper: "Osbey was watching his girlfriend’s children in August 2007 when paramedics were called and found a 21-month-old boy was not breathing.

"Tarayvien Isias Prescott sustained multiple skull fractures Osbey said were suffered in a fall.

"Tarayvien’s 4-year-old brother gave police conflicting stories about how the younger boy was injured. In one, he said the toddler fell off a couch. At another point, the boy said Osbey slammed his brother’s head into the carpet.

Ariel, my sister's granddaughter, (whom I have never met) on the other hand, had no previous record, was 21 years old, had been an A+ student and was employed. On the third hand, she is half Black.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 05:55 PM

JtS has said nothing but truth here.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 05:36 PM

Having half the legal limit in your system is legally and morally right. There is nothing weak willed about it. If you think the legal limit should be zero, don't piss at me and wish me ill. Talk to your MP and work to get it changed.

It is simple, Alcohol is not the only thing that kills on the road and alcohol does not always kill. If it did the solution would be simple. Everyone who drank and drove would be already. But it is not that simple, the reality is that unless you are very very drunk you are quite unlikely to be in an accident on any given trip. You are more likely to be in an accident than a non drinker but you are not likely to be in an accident. I am not saying this to apologize for drunk drivers. I don't. I think it is a profoundly stupid thing to do. I am just saying that more punishment is unlikely to get us much more safety for our law enforcement buck. The approach needs to be comprehensive and proportional; education, punishment, peer pressure.

I am against drinking and driving. I have hope. I think that the police here and the laws here are doing a very good job. I think it is much better now most everywhere than 30 years ago when I was in my 20's. I think it will be even better 30 years from now, Maybe there will be a sensor and a black box in the car measuring and recording the driver's ability to drive.

I stopped inviting a friend to my house because he would get drunk and ride home on his scooter. If he were to get an an accident it is very likely that he would suffer by far the worst of it. But I could not even tacitly condone that. My friend was weak willed. I could not convince him to be stronger. He is no longer my friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 05:24 PM

As a matter of logic, Jack is right.

Incidentally I was nearly rammed three times today by the same bloke whose eyes were cast down from the road towards his lap. Yes, I watch my mirror. By the time he turned off I had let him overtake me (that worried me a bit too) and I think that he was not texting but reading a mapping program on a smartphone or less likely satnav.

Since I was however in a dirty great Shogun that isn't mine (with headrests and with belt on), I was less worried than I might have been. He was in a Corsa about the size of the Shogun's towball.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: romanyman
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 05:11 PM

its simple whats done is done, but its the driver who makes the choice its the victim that pays the price, so dont bleedin drink and get behind the wheel , but i do realise there are many many many weak willed idiots out there who wont bother and jack the sailor obviously is one , hope you dont become a victim, just leaving off for an hour or so wont cut it im afraid

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 01:36 PM

Greg F,

I'm not really impressed or persuaded by name calling. You probably have something better to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 01:34 PM

Ebbie,

It is possible that the driver might have better reaction times without the alcohol. But for example going through a green on say a 45 mph rd you generally don't slow down. You really don't enough have time to effectively react, drunk or sober, Danica Patrick in racing form would probably be hit. Certainly the driver going through the red bears most if not all of the blame.

Certainly if I have had 2 12 ounce beers in an hour, which would put me at about half the limit, my reaction time would be pretty much what it would be sober. Add that to the fact that I drive much more cautiously at times when I might be driving home from a restaurant or party times when many others are drinking, Friday, Saturday evenings or nights because I am looking for signs of impaired drivers, my reaction to potential trouble would be as good as they can possibly be.

But at a light, at speed on a major surface street, I still might get popped by someone else, drunk or sober, texting or not, upset about a breakup or just thrill riding who is recklessly disregarding the rules of the road. Driving is dangerous. One can minimize the risks but not eliminate them.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 01:20 PM

Jacko, OF COURSE there are other causes than alcohol for traffic accidents.

But from your posts, you're still a drunkapologist.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 01:05 PM

"It is even more likely a person could be UNDER the limit and follow every other rule of the road and be involved in an accident caused by someone with no alcohol in their system. FOR EXAMPLE, If the non-alcohol driver is the one who runs the red light, that driver is at fault."

I would postulate that the driver with drinks inside may well be also at fault. The completely sober person may react in time to avoid the car that ran the red light.

My 21-year-old grandniece is currently serving a 10-year sentence for second degree murder after driving drunk with her boyfriend in the car. Her boyfriend was killed in the head on collision that ensued. She had driven onto the freeway going the wrong way.

Oddly enough, the car she hit was not even wrecked and its driver was checked at the local hospital and released.

This was in Arizona, a state that is notorious for its harsh court and prison system. (Look up 'Sheriff Joe')

I'm not protesting her sentence- although to my mind manslaughter or vehicular homicide would perhaps have been more appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:40 PM

As I said, it is much easier to prove that alcohol is a factor in accidents than distracted driving or impairment by other means. I think that skews the statistics somewhat.

I know a young lady who used to drive an hour commute every day while reading books. She thought she could drive safely by checking the road after every couple of sentences. Perhaps she could if everyone else on that road was carefully watch her reactions. But all it would take to kill her is someone else with the same careless disregard as hers at an intersection.

Is the answer driver education?
Is the answer stiff proportional punishment, including higher insurance rates, for those who are caught?
Is the answer peer pressure and warnings and disapproval from friends and family?

Yes, yes, and yes.

And as I said that is what is being done, where I live at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 11:46 AM

Using a hand-held mobile phone to text or talk while driving is already an offence in the UK, Kat. But it doesn't stop stupid pillocks (sadly, many of whom are young women roaring around in powerful company cars, or truck-drivers in huge rigs) from doing it, and our police force have been run down to such a low number by successive governments that there's very few of them around the road network to catch those cretins anyway. So they pretty much always get away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 11:17 AM

No one who is drinking belongs behind the wheel of a car. There is also a campaign over here, now, to stop people from sending text on their cellphones whilst driving. According to the Car Talk guys on NPR radio and other sources, it impairs driving as much as four alcoholic drinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: GUEST,Patsy Warren
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 11:10 AM

It seems to me that it is assumed that most drink drivers are male. Not so, I don't know about the US but here in the UK there has been a steady rise in female drink drivers involved in fatalities or near fatalities caused by being over the limit. A boy lost his life in a village not far from me, he was 8 years old walking along the pavement on his way home from school. The lady was 38 so old enough to be responsible for what she was doing but she had been drinking lost control of her car which mounted the pavement and the boy was mown down and killed instantly. I don't know what the sentence was but no doubt she will see it in her head over and over again for ever.

Even more disturbing was a case of a mother who claimed she was depressed and had been drinking. She got into the car with her 3 year old daughter who was begging her to stop driving because she was drunk and also because of the speed she was driving! It beggars belief. We are supposed to be the caring gender but when I hear stories like that it makes you wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 08:15 AM

Its more likely that they're not drunk? Or more likely I'll be killed or maimed? Or is hope more likely?

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 10:48 PM

I apologized for no one. I merely pointed out that alcohol was not the only factor. I also expressed my faith in the system as it is.

Lets hope you aren't killed or maimed by someone who is not drunk. It is more likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 07:39 PM

As I said, Jack, you're apparently just one more drunkapologist.

As such, you're absolutely right- no point in continuing the discussion.

Lets just hope you aren't killed or maimed by a drunk driver.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 01:10 PM

Sorry Greg,

Pardon me for parsing "Sorry, Jack old lad, but the "person with alcohol" behind the wheel is BY DEFINITION at fault." as a normal English sentence.

Now that you are backtracking from that patently silly statement, I have no idea where you stand and therefor have no reason to continue this line of discussion.

But in summation, I say.

There are other factors involved. It is quite possible that a person could be over the limit and follow every other rule of the road and be involved in an accident caused by someone with no alcohol in their system. It is even more likely a person could be UNDER the limit and follow every other rule of the road and be involved in an accident caused by someone with no alcohol in their system. FOR EXAMPLE, If the non-alcohol driver is the one who runs the red light, that driver is at fault. This idea is not complicated or in any way unreasonable.

But as far as I can tell MADD counts those accidents in their stats of "Accidents involving alcohol." Such practice is dishonest and it erodes their message.

And no, the person with alcohol" behind the wheel is >>>>>NOT<<<<< BY DEFINITION at fault.

The person who us ACTUALLY at fault is BY DEFINITION at fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 12:13 PM

Sorry again, Jacko- Thn fact that there are other factors involved in deadly accidents - which is true, but nugatory - has nowt to do with the topic under discussion: drink (or drunk) driving.

Operating a motor vehicle while over the legal limit is a crime, period, whether no adverse incident is involved (i.e., pure luck), you have a fender-bender, paralyze someone for life, or kill someone.

Publishing and publicising the worst offenders doesn't do much for a quadraplegic.

Do you think you can drive as fast as you want while texting and not be charged with anything

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: kendall
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 11:38 AM

I told one of them that her outrage is not a basis for a law.

Subject: RE: BS: Drunk driving
From: kendall
Date: 03 Aug 10 - 11:33 AM

I have friends who insist that abortion is murder. It is not.Murder is a legal term, not a moral one.