Drunk driving

[Baron Max]

Both had the intention of drinking to the point of where they were unable drive safely. That's a crime that should be punished.

Agreed. But then, ....what about the drinkers who can drink gallons and still drive home safely? How many of those people are there on the road at any given time? Don't know, do you? Yet you're willing to jump in and punish them by not allowing them to drink.

Baron Max

 

[Enmos]

I see the same problem with murder v attempted murder. The attemped murder is typically a lower level crime than murder. So basically you're being rewarded for being a lousey shot. I think it should be all about intention.

I kind of agree. But how to prove what someones intention is ? That can be tricky.

 

[fess]

Agreed. But then, ....what about the drinkers who can drink gallons and still drive home safely? How many of those people are there on the road at any given time? Don't know, do you? Yet you're willing to jump in and punish them by not allowing them to drink.

Baron Max

No law against drinking. The law is against driving drunk, as determined by a blood or breath test .
If your intension is to put yourself in a situation where you are drinking excessively and then are going to drive, you should be punished. Even if you can't start the car. The intension and attempt is there to break the law.

 

[lcat]

First, it's a very limited statistic. And most importantly, since those drunk drivers weren't allowed to continue driving, we have no stats on how many would have been involved in accidents. See? The stats give no numbers for what we should be seeking.

Wrong. And I call bull.

Drivers sampled on Detroit roads, weekend nights, several weeks in a row. Percentage of drunk drivers obtained.

Accident stats collected for Detroit roads, weekend nights, not just those weekends, but all weekends. Including how many involved drivers who had been drinking.

Unless you are going to claim some specious bs excuse about believing there to be seasonal fluctuation or something else that YOU have no evidence for whatsoever, then all the numbers you asked for are right there. You are merely shifting goalposts as fast as you can shove them, because for whatever reason you don't seem to want to admit that there is a strong correlation between drink driving and fatality accidents -- a consistent finding across many years, many states, and many countries.

Why? :bugeye:

Agreed. But then, ....what about the drinkers who can drink gallons and still drive home safely? How many of those people are there on the road at any given time? Don't know, do you? Yet you're willing to jump in and punish them by not allowing them to drink.

Baron Max

For exactly the same reason that we arrest and punish people who fire guns randomly into crowds. I mean, gee whiz, maybe they're capable of firing the gun into the crowd without hitting anyone!

Besides, there have been test after test after test after test after test after bloody test of people -- even, or especially in some cases -- people who self-select themselves as being "good" drivers after they drink. These people are given varying amounts to drink and are then sat in driving simulators and monitored. Everyone, even the people who think they drive well, show significant impairments of judgement and reflex after certain amounts.

Supporting evidence for why so many accidents by proportion involved drinking drivers.

Again, why are you going so far out of your way to defend idiots and criminals?

 

[lcat]

No law against drinking. The law is against driving drunk, as determined by a blood or breath test .
If your intension is to put yourself in a situation where you are drinking excessively and then are going to drive, you should be punished. Even if you can't start the car. The intension and attempt is there to break the law.

Agreed, that is it exactly; plus, not just the intention to break the law, but also wilful negligence and gross disregard for the safety of people around them, given that there IS such a strong correlation with fatality and injury accidents.

 

[Baron Max]

Drivers sampled on Detroit roads, weekend nights, several weeks in a row. Percentage of drunk drivers obtained.

But that doesn't show how many of those drunk drivers would have been involved in accidents. It ONLY shows how many drunk drivers they caught! No one can say how many of those WOULD HAVE caused accidents!!

Everyone, even the people who think they drive well, show significant impairments of judgement and reflex after certain amounts.

It's also been shown that a significant portion of drivers show significant impairment of judgement and reflexes when they're ....ahh, text messaging, taling on the phone, putting on makeup, drinking coffee, having discussions with passengers, having argument with the spouse, ...., and a whole slew of other nondrinking events.

How many drivers on the road have been drinking? How many of those drinking drivers will be involved in accidents? And how many will make it home without any accidents at all? Those are the questions you have to ask if you're serious about this issue.

Now if you just want to believe the propaganda, and hate all drivers who drink, then .....well, be my guest. But rest assured that it's not much different to racist or other prejudices ...hate just for hate's sake.

Baron Max

 

[swarm]

First, it's a very limited statistic.

Squirm

Go have another drink baron.

 

[Baron Max]

Go have another drink baron.

And drive, too. See? You just don't get it ....gazillions of people drink, drive and never, ever, get into accidents. Yet because a few of them do, you want to take away the privilege of all of the drinkers.

And yet, more accidents, fatal and otherwise, are caused by sober drivers. Why don't you want to take away the driving privileges of sober drivers? Ahh, wait, I know ..........because fatalities by sober drivers is okay!

Baron Max

 

[Enmos]

I believe it has something to do with increased risk

 

[Baron Max]

I believe it has something to do with increased risk.

Yeah, sounds pretty good, don't it? But wait, how can you prove that if you don't have the proper statistics?

Let's do a hypothetical:

15% of all drivers have accidents. That gives us a basic control group, right?
Now, if you can show me statistics to prove that MORE than 15% of drinking drivers have accidents, then I can agree with your "increased risk" idea.

So, ....can you tell me what that percentage actually is? And if not, then how did you come up with "increased risk"?

See? You can't tell me how many drinkers DON'T have accidents, can you? And without that, you're "increased risk" is simply bullshit ...MADD propaganda which you've swallowed hook, line and sink.

Baron Max

 

[fess]

Yeah, sounds pretty good, don't it? But wait, how can you prove that if you don't have the proper statistics?

Let's do a hypothetical:

15% of all drivers have accidents. That gives us a basic control group, right?
Now, if you can show me statistics to prove that MORE than 15% of drinking drivers have accidents, then I can agree with your "increased risk" idea.

So, ....can you tell me what that percentage actually is? And if not, then how did you come up with "increased risk"?

See? You can't tell me how many drinkers DON'T have accidents, can you? And without that, you're "increased risk" is simply bullshit ...MADD propaganda which you've swallowed hook, line and sink.

Baron Max

Would you agree that "excessive" drinking causes a decrease in coordination, judgement and motor skills? I believe that's a fairly well demonstrated fact.
Doesn't it stand to reason that being in that state would make you more prone to having an accident?

 

[Enmos]

Yeah, sounds pretty good, don't it? But wait, how can you prove that if you don't have the proper statistics?

Let's do a hypothetical:

15% of all drivers have accidents. That gives us a basic control group, right?
Now, if you can show me statistics to prove that MORE than 15% of drinking drivers have accidents, then I can agree with your "increased risk" idea.

So, ....can you tell me what that percentage actually is? And if not, then how did you come up with "increased risk"?

See? You can't tell me how many drinkers DON'T have accidents, can you? And without that, you're "increased risk" is simply bullshit ...MADD propaganda which you've swallowed hook, line and sink.

Baron Max

lol sure Barron..

 

[Baron Max]

Would you agree that "excessive" drinking causes a decrease in coordination, judgement and motor skills? I believe that's a fairly well demonstrated fact.

Would you agree that putting on makeup cause a decrease in coordination, judgement and motor skills. I believe that's a fairly well-demonstated fact.

Would you agree that eating lunch while driving causes a decrease in coordination, judgement and motor skills. I believe that's a fairly well-demonstated fact.

Would you agree that talking on the phone while driving causes a decrease in coordination, judgement and motor skills. I believe that's a fairly well-demonstated fact.

Would you agree that text messaging while driving causes a decrease in coordination, judgement and motor skills. I believe that's a fairly well-demonstated fact.

Would you agree that having a discussion with a passenger while driving causes a decrease in coordination, judgement and motor skills. I believe that's a fairly well-demonstated fact.

Would you agree that arguing with ones spouse while driving causes a decrease in coordination, judgement and motor skills. I believe that's a fairly well-demonstated fact.

What me to go on? ...or do you get the point?

So, what are we gonna' do about all of the above problems? Perhaps, if a driver is stopped and has a cell phone, we throw him into jail? If a driver has makeup in the car, we throw them into jail? If a driver has food wrappers in the car, we throw them into jail?

Doesn't it stand to reason that being in that state would make you more prone to having an accident?

Yep, but no different to the thousands of other things, some of which I listed above. So, .....throw everyone in jail that drives?

Baron Max

 

[fess]

Would you agree that putting on makeup cause a decrease in coordination, judgement and motor skills. I believe that's a fairly well-demonstated fact.

Would you agree that eating lunch while driving causes a decrease in coordination, judgement and motor skills. I believe that's a fairly well-demonstated fact.

Would you agree that talking on the phone while driving causes a decrease in coordination, judgement and motor skills. I believe that's a fairly well-demonstated fact.

Would you agree that text messaging while driving causes a decrease in coordination, judgement and motor skills. I believe that's a fairly well-demonstated fact.

Would you agree that having a discussion with a passenger while driving causes a decrease in coordination, judgement and motor skills. I believe that's a fairly well-demonstated fact.

Would you agree that arguing with ones spouse while driving causes a decrease in coordination, judgement and motor skills. I believe that's a fairly well-demonstated fact.

What me to go on? ...or do you get the point?

So, what are we gonna' do about all of the above problems? Perhaps, if a driver is stopped and has a cell phone, we throw him into jail? If a driver has makeup in the car, we throw them into jail? If a driver has food wrappers in the car, we throw them into jail?



Yep, but no different to the thousands of other things, some of which I listed above. So, .....throw everyone in jail that drives?

Baron Max

Actually, I wouldn't agree that the things you list will decrease judgement, coordination and motorskills. They will distract you, but they don't impair your judgement. Granted, not a good idea to do these things, but your judgement and coordination should still be in place and hopefully you will stop doing them if the situation changes.

It's hard to decide to stop being drunk.

 

[Baron Max]

Actually, I wouldn't agree that the things you list will decrease judgement, coordination and motorskills. ......and hopefully you will stop doing them if the situation changes.

Hopefully? That's all you can say? Surely you realize that drivers who are in accidents due to any or all of those listed ....stop doing those things AFTER the accident! Just think about it for a moment ....how many auto accidents are there in the USA? Doesn't that tell you anything about drivers and "paying attention"?

It's hard to decide to stop being drunk.

But tens of thousands or more of them make it home without mishap. That has to be interesting to you. Yet you seem perfectly willing to persecute drinkers, while letting all those others just drive away happily ignorant.

Seriously, you should think about this issue more thoroughly before you become a dedicated MADD volunteer or something worse. Hating, and persecuting, all drinkers for the actions of a few is ...well, it ain't very nice.

Baron Max

 

[swarm]

And drive, too. See?

I'm sure that makes perfect sense after your third drink.

 

[lcat]

But that doesn't show how many of those drunk drivers would have been involved in accidents. It ONLY shows how many drunk drivers they caught! No one can say how many of those WOULD HAVE caused accidents!!


:bugeye:

You're a troll, aren't you. A persistent, long-lived, immune-to-evidence troll. Got it.

Given the statistics of the risk, which you say are needed, you ignore them, pretending that the numbers presented (% drunk drivers on the road in a given time and place, disproportionality of % drunk drivers in accidents) are not the numbers you asked for; given the simple facts of alcohol effects, it's as if you don't hear them; and faced with the argument of "increased risk" you quickly try scattershotting the blame hither and yon.

Oh, and "class hate" -- what, you mean like homophobia?

Don't think so, mate; I just hate the kind of puerile mewling self-entitled idiots who make the choice to put other lives at risk because they don't want to know or care that they do so.

May they kill themselves before they kill innocent people. My own personal wish is that they die in flaming agony, but hey, just as long as they die before they hurt anyone else it's good.

 

[Baron Max]

You're a troll, aren't you. A persistent, long-lived, immune-to-evidence troll. Got it.

Is that to mean that we should all believe you without question, without comment?

So instead of actually discussing the questions and points that I've raised, you simply call me names and continue with your beliefs and hold fast to the MADD propaganda. Interesting ...sorta' like a good scientific method, huh?

I've admitted that alcohol impairs driving skills ...but at the same time, I've shown you many other various things that impairs driving skills. Yet you choose not to reply ...instead, you call me a troll. Which means, of course, that I've raised a point that you can't respond to, or if you do, then it shows your own staunch beliefs in the propaganda.

May they kill themselves before they kill innocent people. My own personal wish is that they die in flaming agony, but hey, just as long as they die before they hurt anyone else it's good.

Do you wish the same horrible deaths for drivers that are impaired by other things? ...like putting on makeup, arguing over the cell phone, eating hamburgers, drinking hot coffee, reading the newspapers, ......, and all the other myriad of things that have been proven to cause accidents? Do you wish for them to die horrible deaths, too?

See? If you don't wish that, then you're simply "out to get" ONLY drivers who drink. I.e., you're totally biased and prejudiced.

Baron Max

 

[lcat]

Is that to mean that we should all believe you without question, without comment?

No. I call you a troll because you have been given valid statistics, and persist in ignoring them or pretending that they do not say what they say.

I am not in the mood to keep patiently answering the question once it has been answered for someone who is obviously in no mind to pay any attention to evidence presented.

I've admitted that alcohol impairs driving skills ...but at the same time, I've shown you many other various things that impairs driving skills. Yet you choose not to reply ...instead, you call me a troll. Which means, of course, that I've raised a point that you can't respond to, or if you do, then it shows your own staunch beliefs in the propaganda.

No; you're just doing what we generally call "muddying the waters". As it happens, using mobile phones is also illegal in a number of countries and states, because it increases the risk of accident ALMOST as much as driving drunk -- something determined, once again, by traffic sampling, surveys, statistical analysis, and experiment.

Do you wish the same horrible deaths for drivers that are impaired by other things? ...like putting on makeup, arguing over the cell phone, eating hamburgers, drinking hot coffee, reading the newspapers, ......, and all the other myriad of things that have been proven to cause accidents? Do you wish for them to die horrible deaths, too?

See? If you don't wish that, then you're simply "out to get" ONLY drivers who drink. I.e., you're totally biased and prejudiced.

I have a similar contempt for everyone who acts similarly irresponsible on the roads, putting innocent people at risk and resulting in the deaths of those who merely had the bad luck to be in their vicinity at the wrong time, and the heartbreak and destruction this visits on various families. I do have a special level of hatred for people who think like you seem to, i.e. "You can't prove that drunk driving is bad, and even if you can, we're no worse than anyone else!", in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

But this thread, and discussion, was originally about drunk driving, so I'm not letting you get away with what appears to be another of your favoured tactics, which is spreading focus to every other topic which you can drag in so that the point gets lost.

 

[Nasor]

It depends on why you want to punish criminals. If you believe that the purpose of punishing criminals is to balance some vast imaginary cosmic scale of justice by taking vengeance on the perpetrator, or make victims feel better by letting them know that the person who wronged them is suffering, then it makes sense to base punishments on outcomes rather than intentions/actions. On the other hand, if you believe that the purpose of punishing criminals is to deter crime and/or rehabilitate criminals, then there isn't a clear reason why two people who performed exactly the same illegal act shouldn't have exactly the same punishment (assuming the difference in outcomes of the illegal act was random and outside the perpetrator's control).