Drunk driving

[Baron Max]

Exactly. The drunk driver is putting other drivers at excessive and unnecessary risk, which is why they get punished so severely even if they didn't kill anyone or cause any property damage. And rightly so.

Hmm, teenage drivers have much, MUCH higher rates of accidents ..which put far, far more drivers at risk ........yet we don't persecute them like we do the drinking drivers. Why not?

See? There's something else going on here. and I think I know what it is ......MADD propaganda!! That's all it is ....MADD has drummed it into us to the point that we think it's actually true! and some of y'all are defending it tooth and nail, yet you can't give me the RATE of drinking driver accidnets.

Baron Max

 

[swarm]

That doesn't make sense. Thieves actually cause loss. Drunks are involved in accidents that don't kill anyone, also, but they are liable for property damage and injury.

A drunk on the road is causing a far higher risk against the society than the average thief.

 

[swarm]

Sober drivers have more accidents than drinkers

Are you drunk right now?

 

[Balerion]

So what causes all of the gazillions of accidents by sober drivers?
If sober drivers have accidents when they are NOT "impaired", why can't the drinking drivers have exactly the same accident as the sober guys? Why do you see a difference?

Are you really asking me this? The question is how many deadly accidents are there caused by drunks. And the truth is that there are 25,000 alcohol-related traffic deaths per year. One out of every two Americans is expected to be in an alcohol-related traffic accident in their lifetime.

Drunk driving accidents kill people at a greater rate than non-alcohol-related accidents do. That's why.

Sober drivers have more accidents than drinkers, so why aren't we "deterring" them? Why pick on the drinkers?

Again, because drunk drivers are impaired. They are putting everyone else at risk by not being in full control. Your reflexes are something like 10 times slower when you're drunk. How is this even a question, Baron? Are you that stupid?

And as to "deterrent", teens have the worst rate of accidents of all drivers. So we should arrest those little bastards ten times more than the drinkers! But we don't, do we? We'd rather pick on the drinkers for some reason.

We'd rather pick on drunk drivers because being drunk is an impairment. Teens are not impaired, they're just young. Now, if you want to argue that the driving age limit should be higher, I'm with you. But it's not their fault they suck at driving. A drunk, however, can simply be a functional driver by not drinking.

I'm still waiting for someone to give me an accurate RATE of accidents for drinkers. Take the total number of drinkers on the road, then divide by the number of accidents for those drivers. IF that number/rate is higher than regular drivers, then you've convinced me.

Don't pretend you know math.

Drunk driving deaths account for 32% of all road fatalities. But that is down from 60% in 1982. It's gone down almost uniformly since then, thanks to increases in drunk driving laws. I believe it's still the number one cause, but even if it isn't, it's only because of the laws we have in place today.

Hmm, teenage drivers have much, MUCH higher rates of accidents ..which put far, far more drivers at risk ........yet we don't persecute them like we do the drinking drivers. Why not?

Just out of curiosity...care to provide any stat whatsoever that says teenagers account for more traffic accidents than drunks?

See? There's something else going on here. and I think I know what it is ......MADD propaganda!! That's all it is ....MADD has drummed it into us to the point that we think it's actually true! and some of y'all are defending it tooth and nail, yet you can't give me the RATE of drinking driver accidnets.

In 1982, drunk drivers were responsible for 60% of all traffic deaths. It is now 32%. Still a huge number, far higher than teenagers, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Baron Max]

A drunk on the road is causing a far higher risk against the society than the average thief.

Hmm, do you have anything to back up that assertion? I'm inclined to believe that it isn't true, so....... Any data? Any studies?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Are you really asking me this? The question is how many deadly accidents are there caused by drunks. And the truth is that there are 25,000 alcohol-related traffic deaths per year.

Okay. How many deadly accidents are caused by non-drinking drivers per year?

One out of every two Americans is expected to be in an alcohol-related traffic accident in their lifetime.

Okay. How many Americans are expected to be in NON-alcohol-related traffic accidents in their lifetime?

Drunk driving accidents kill people at a greater rate than non-alcohol-related accidents do. That's why.

Is that right? Can you prove that with statistics?

Again, because drunk drivers are impaired. They are putting everyone else at risk by not being in full control. Your reflexes are something like 10 times slower when you're drunk.

That's also true of many different things that people do while driving ...putting on makeup, reading the paper, arguing with people in the car, eating lunch, drinking coffee, reaching for the streetmap, ....., the list goes on and on.

We'd rather pick on drunk drivers because being drunk is an impairment. Teens are not impaired, they're just young.

Well, Dawg, if you're worried about deaths in auto accidents, then you sure as hell shouldn't let teens drive! They kill many, many more people than drunks by a loooooooong sight! So, see, you're not really concerned about the deaths, are you? Nope, you're just using those deaths to persecute drinkers.

Drunk driving deaths account for 32% of all road fatalities. But that is down from 60% in 1982. It's gone down almost uniformly since then, ....

And again, you haven't furnished the RATE of accidents by drinkers as COMPARED to the RATE of accidents by non-drinkers. I'm suggesting that it's not much different ...which suggests that drinkers or non-drinkers get into accidents at about the same rate. Thus, .....the drinking isn't the cause!

Baron Max

 

[distantcube]

It's rather funny to watch Baron Max run rings around posters, with those posters offering up useless statistics which actually support Baron Max's arguments, instead of just posting the rate of fatalities for drunk vs. non-drunk drivers. I mean:

Originally Posted by JDawg
Drunk driving deaths account for 32% of all road fatalities.

Implies that 68% of all road fatalities are caused by non-drunk drivers.

From memory, 'alcohol' and 'speed' combined still only account for a minority of fatalities. It's usually a driving error (failing to look in mirrors/head checks, not judging a speed correctly, not judging distances correctly) that is responsible for crashes and fatalities.

 

[MetaKron]

There is a built-in bias in the death statistics when the fault in the crash is always assigned to the drunk driver involved. Another bias is when police lie about someone being drunk, and yet another is when they assume that alcohol caused an impairment that caused the accident. Teachers used to try to teach people better logic than that.

 

[alaska1976]

So what causes all of the gazillions of accidents by sober drivers?
If sober drivers have accidents when they are NOT "impaired", why can't the drinking drivers have exactly the same accident as the sober guys? Why do you see a difference?
--------------------------
1. Of the above, drinking drivers much of the time have the same type of accidents that non-drinking drivers have. They lose control, they fall asleep, they become distracted, they text, they talk on a cell, they don't look all directions, but when your under the influence of any drug that causes mental instability, the chances of that driver having an accident goes up three fold then the driver who is not impaired by any drug.
-----------------------------
Sober drivers have more accidents than drinkers, so why aren't we "deterring" them? Why pick on the drinkers?
---------------------------------
2. Having an accident because crap happens is one thing. Having an accident because crap happens while your under the influence of one or more drugs, your going to get the book tossed at you.
Your argument is like trying to defend a position that their isn't much difference whether a sober person baby sits one or more infants or if a person under the influence of one or more drugs baby sits one or more infants.
There is a differance.
--------------------------------
And as to "deterrent", teens have the worst rate of accidents of all drivers. So we should arrest those little bastards ten times more than the drinkers! But we don't, do we? We'd rather pick on the drinkers for some reason.
-----------------------------------
3. Of the above it would not matter what age it is for when you can be legal to drive be it 14, 16, 18 or 21 oe 31. First time drivers will ALWAYS have more accidents then drivers with a couple or more years of experience. But teens are held accountable to the laws as any other driver.
---------------------------------------
I'm still waiting for someone to give me an accurate RATE of accidents for drinkers. Take the total number of drinkers on the road, then divide by the number of accidents for those drivers. IF that number/rate is higher than regular drivers, then you've convinced me.
------------------------------------
4. The rates differ from state to state.In Alaska, the percentage of alcohol related deaths and the actual number of alcohol related deaths peaked in 1984. Since then, the drunk driving deaths have shown a downward trend, with the lowest number of deaths in 1998, in both total number and alcohol related fatalities. In 2006, out of all traffic fatalities, 27% involved a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or higher, which is the lowest on record.

In essence of the understanding, if your sober, have an accident and it is your fault, you'll get the book tossed at you. But be under the influence of one or more drugs and have that same accident and it is your fault and you'll get the book tossed at you a bit harder.
Baron Max

No one said life is fair eh?

 

[Baron Max]

No one said life is fair eh?

Nope, and it's definitely unfair to the drinkers in life.

Baron Max

PS - if you were trying to say something else, you didn't post it properly, did you? Some of those comments weren't mine, yet you posted them as my comments. Pretty sneaky of you, huh?

 

[Balerion]

Okay. How many deadly accidents are caused by non-drinking drivers per year?

That's not the point. You can't segregate them into "alcohol" and "non-alcohol", because the "non-alcohol" category consists of like a dozen different primary causes.

Okay. How many Americans are expected to be in NON-alcohol-related traffic accidents in their lifetime?

Doesn't matter.

That's also true of many different things that people do while driving ...putting on makeup, reading the paper, arguing with people in the car, eating lunch, drinking coffee, reaching for the streetmap, ....., the list goes on and on.

Not so. The people who are distracting themselves still have all of their motor skills. Of course they should be prosecuted for their involvement in such accidents, but it's harder to prove the crime in those cases.

Well, Dawg, if you're worried about deaths in auto accidents, then you sure as hell shouldn't let teens drive! They kill many, many more people than drunks by a loooooooong sight! So, see, you're not really concerned about the deaths, are you? Nope, you're just using those deaths to persecute drinkers.

Do you have any numbers to support that?

How many DWI's do you have, out of curiosity?

And again, you haven't furnished the RATE of accidents by drinkers as COMPARED to the RATE of accidents by non-drinkers. I'm suggesting that it's not much different ...which suggests that drinkers or non-drinkers get into accidents at about the same rate. Thus, .....the drinking isn't the cause!

:bugeye: I've given you numbers to show that before many of the laws were enacted, drunk drivers accounted for nearly 70% of the road fatalities in this country. You've obviously decided to ignore those facts, so I'm not going to bother anymore. You've been given all the information you asked for, and you've summarily ignored it, likely because you're an alcoholic with a revoked license. That's my hunch, anyway.

 

[swarm]

Hmm, do you have anything to back up that assertion? I'm inclined to believe that it isn't true, so....... Any data? Any studies?

(1) Hunt, W.A., & Witt, E.D. Behavioral effects of alcohol ingestion: Implications for drug testing. Toxic Substances Journal 13:41-49, 1994.
(2) Zobeck, T.S.; Stinson, F.S.; Grant, B.F.; & Bertolucci, D. Surveillance Report #26: Trends in Alcohol-Related Fatal Traffic Crashes, United States: 1979-91. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Division of Biometry and Epidemiology, Nov. 1993.
(3) Modell, J.G., & Mountz, J.M. Drinking and flying--The problem of alcohol use by pilots. New England Journal of Medicine 323(7):455-461, 1990.
(4) Howland, J.; Smith, G.S.; Mangione, T.; Hingson, R.; DeJong, W.; & Bell, N. Missing the boat on drinking and boating. Journal of the American Medical Association 270(1):91-92, 1993.
(5) Kolstad, J. Alcohol, drugs and transportation. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 8(3-4):177-184, 1992.
(6) Moody, D.E.; Crouch, D.J.; Smith, R.P.; Cresalia, C.W.; Francom, P.; Wilkins, D.G.; & Rollins, D.E. Drug and alcohol involvement in railroad accidents. Journal of Forensic Sciences 36(5):1474-1484, 1991.
(7) Fisher, H.R.; Simpson, R.I.; & Kapur, B.M. Calculation of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) by sex, weight, number of drinks and time. Canadian Journal of Public Health 78(5):300-304, 1987.
(8) Busloff, S.E. Can your eyes be used against you? The use of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test in the courtroom. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 84(1):203-238, 1993.
(9) Katoh, Z. Slowing effects of alcohol on voluntary eye movements. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 59:606-610, 1988.
(10) Baloh, R.W.; Sharma, S.; Moskowitz, H.; & Griffith, R. Effect of alcohol and marijuana on eye movements. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 50(1):18-23, 1979.
(11) Linnoila, M.; Erwin, C.W.; Ramm, D.; & Cleveland, W.P. Effects of age and alcohol on psychomotor performance of men. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 41(5):488-495, 1980.
(12) Moskowitz, H., & Burns, M. Effects of alcohol on driving performance. Alcohol Health & Research World 14(1):12-14, 1990.
(13) Mundt, J.C., & Ross, L.E. Methodological issues for evaluation of alcohol and other drug effects: Examples from flight-simulator perform-ance. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 25(3):360-365, 1993.
(14) Morrow, D.; Leirer, V.; & Yesavage, J. The influence of alcohol and aging on radio communication during flight. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 61(1):12-20, 1990.
(15) Howat, P.; Sleet, D.; & Smith, I. Alcohol and driving: Is the 0.05% blood alcohol concentration limit justified? Drug and Alcohol Review 10(2):151-166, 1991.
(16) Billings, C.E.; Demosthenes, T.; White, T.R.; & O'Hara, D.B. Effects of alcohol on pilot performance in simulated flight. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 62(3):233-235, 1991.
(17) Moskowitz, H.; Burns, M.M.; & Williams, A.F. Skills performance at low blood alcohol levels. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 46(6):482-485, 1985.
(18) Dubowski, K.M. The Technology of Breath-Alcohol Analysis. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)92-1728. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1992.
(19) Chesher, G., & Greeley, J. Tolerance to the effects of alcohol. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 8(2):93-106, 1992.
(20) Morrow, D.; Yesavage, J.; Leirer, V.; Dolbert, N.; Taylor, J.; & Tinklenberg, J. The time-course of alcohol impairment of general aviation pilot performance in a Frasca 141 simulator. Aviation, Space, and Environme ntal Medicine 64(8):697-705, 1993.
(21) Zador, P.L. Alcohol-related relative risk of fatal driver injuries in relation to driver age and sex. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 52(4):302-310, 1991.
(22) Hingson, R. Prevention of alcohol-impaired driving. Alcohol Health & Research World 17(1):28-34, 1993.
(23) Al-Lanqawi, Y.; Moreland, T.A.; McEwen, J.; Halliday, F.; Durnin, C.J.; & Stevenson, I.H. Ethanol kinetics: Extent of error in back extrapolation procedures. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 34(4):316-321, 1992.
(24) Van Berkom, L.C. Chemical test evidence in DWI cases: Some issues and challenges. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 7(3-4):229-234, 1991.
(25) Canfield, D.V.; Kupiec, T.; & Huffine, E. Postmortem alcohol production in fatal aircraft accidents. Journal of Forensic Sciences 38(4):914-917, 1993.
(26) Chao, T.C., & Lo, D.S.T. Relationship between postmortem blood and vitreous humor ethanol levels. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 14(4):303-308, 1993.

 

[swarm]

Ah, more drunks to join the fray.

Its just bias. Other things cause accidents. I can take strong CNS depressants and drive.

 

[Baron Max]

(1) Hunt, W.A., & Witt, E.D. Behavioral effects of alcohol ingestion: Implications for drug testing. Toxic Substances Journal 13:41-49, 1994.
(2) Zobeck, T.S.; Stinson, F.S.; Grant, B.F.; & Bertolucci, D. Surveillance Report #26: Trends in Alcohol-Related Fatal Traffic Crashes, United States: 1979-91. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Division of Biometry and Epidemiology, Nov. 1993.
(3) Modell, J.G., & Mountz, J.M. Drinking and flying--The problem of alcohol use by pilots. New England Journal of Medicine 323(7):455-461, 1990.

****

(24) Van Berkom, L.C. Chemical test evidence in DWI cases: Some issues and challenges. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 7(3-4):229-234, 1991.
(25) Canfield, D.V.; Kupiec, T.; & Huffine, E. Postmortem alcohol production in fatal aircraft accidents. Journal of Forensic Sciences 38(4):914-917, 1993.
(26) Chao, T.C., & Lo, D.S.T. Relationship between postmortem blood and vitreous humor ethanol levels. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 14(4):303-308, 1993.

And I'm sure that we could dig up similar justifications for the persecution of other social misfits ....such as those pesky Christians in Rome; those nasty Vikings attacking England; those horrible witches of Salem; those nasty black slaves from Africa; those meek Chinese in early California; those damned Mexicans who tried to steal back the land that Americans stole from them; those nasty Muslims who keep blowing people and pouring acid on innocent faces; those pesky, demanding gays; ....., well, you get the picture.

If there's some group that a particular society wants to persecute, well, golly, we can find tons of perfectly good justification for it written by "scholars" and "scientists".

Baron Max

 

[Balerion]

And I'm sure that we could dig up similar justifications for the persecution of other social misfits ....such as those pesky Christians in Rome; those nasty Vikings attacking England; those horrible witches of Salem; those nasty black slaves from Africa; those meek Chinese in early California; those damned Mexicans who tried to steal back the land that Americans stole from them; those nasty Muslims who keep blowing people and pouring acid on innocent faces; those pesky, demanding gays; ....., well, you get the picture.

If there's some group that a particular society wants to persecute, well, golly, we can find tons of perfectly good justification for it written by "scholars" and "scientists".

Baron Max

HAHAHHAH! You're actually comparing drunk drivers to the Christians in Rome?! AHAHAHAHAHHHAHAAHAHA!

 

[Baron Max]

HAHAHHAH! You're actually comparing drunk drivers to the Christians in Rome?! AHAHAHAHAHHHAHAAHAHA!

No, I'm comparing the PERSECUTION of drunks to the PERSECUTION of those that I listed ...and there are more such persecutions all through human history.

Baron Max

 

[Balerion]

No, I'm comparing the PERSECUTION of drunks to the PERSECUTION of those that I listed ...and there are more such persecutions all through human history.

Baron Max

Yes, you're comparing the plight of folks who knew the rules and who could have easily called a fucking cab, to the plight of faithful folks who were murdered for what they believed. How apt.

 

[Baron Max]

Yes, you're comparing the plight of folks who knew the rules and who could have easily called a fucking cab, to the plight of faithful folks who were murdered for what they believed. How apt.

They were killed for what they believed, they were killed because of their religious ACTIONS. If they'd kept their fuckin' mouths shut about their beliefs, no one would have persecuted them.

As to get a cab? Why should he? He was perfectly able to drive the car himself.

And, see, I'm all for punishing the drunk who gets into accidents. But I'm NOT ever going to be in favor of punishing someone for what they MIGHT do. That's just plain wrong.

Baron Max

 

[Balerion]

They were killed for what they believed, they were killed because of their religious ACTIONS. If they'd kept their fuckin' mouths shut about their beliefs, no one would have persecuted them.

As to get a cab? Why should he? He was perfectly able to drive the car himself.

And, see, I'm all for punishing the drunk who gets into accidents. But I'm NOT ever going to be in favor of punishing someone for what they MIGHT do. That's just plain wrong.

Baron Max

The point is that he wasn't perfectly able to drive the car himself. It's been demonstrated that your reflex are up to 10 times slower when intoxicated. That is not being "perfectly able" to drive. You're more likely to put others at risk when you are drunk.

And again, the only reason drunks don't still account for 80% of the on-road deaths like they used is because of the laws that have been put in place (and finally enforced) since then. Without these laws, we'd still have 75-85% of all on-road deaths being attributed to drunks. So the law actually works. If you had actually done some research on the subject rather than getting drunk and ranting, maybe you'd see that too.

 

[Baron Max]

The point is that he wasn't perfectly able to drive the car himself. It's been demonstrated that your reflex are up to 10 times slower when intoxicated. That is not being "perfectly able" to drive. You're more likely to put others at risk when you are drunk.

So when a person is "more likely" to be in an accident, we should arrest them and throw them into prison? Say, anyone who is "likely" to become enraged on the road, we should just grab 'em up and throw 'em into jail?

I don't know why you can't see that you're backing and advocating laws that are based on what a person MIGHT do. Would support any and all laws that are designed to jail someone for what they MIGHT do at some future date?

I like your take on "laws that work". It's interesting to contemplate. Let's say we just arrest all gang members for what they MIGHT do ....I'll bet that the incident of gang-related violence would drop to almost zilch. Would you back such a law?

We could really have fun creating those laws, huh? Laws designed to prevent things from happening in the future by just examining people to check their mental attitudes and such. If they don't pass, throw 'em into prison BEFORE they cause those future problems. Yep, I like it.

Baron Max