BS: Drunk driving

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 09 Aug 10 - 10:44 PM

Hmmmmm

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

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: 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: Greg F.
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 01:53 PM

Precisely. Wch is why I gave up.