I was arrested for DUI

[Hot Mega]

There's far too much science being discussed here when the only thing that matters is, drinking and driving is a really dumb and irresponsible thing to do.

Had a couple of buddies have their driving liscences taken away. And we've all heard the horror stories about accidents, where ******* was involved. Some of us have experienced that first hand, or have had loved ones lost because of it.

Call a taxi. Call a sober friend. Or ****** member. Have your girlfriend come get you. Walk. Eat something and wait.


No matter what the argument, common sense tells me that if you inbibe something, and it impairs your senses and functions, you shouldn't be operating heavy machinery.

Well since it's fairly proven that having relatively small amounts of ******* practically doesn't produce as many accidents as other culprits...it's no more dumber than some of the other things. The only thing that makes it dumber to do is risk of excessive penalty.

Speaking of common sense....common sense should tell anyone that merely have some small amounts of ******* in your system is generally safer than some of the other distractions....At least if you've only have a small amount of *******...your eyes are still on the road.

 

[CrackHerButt]

Damn dude. You kind of made your own episode of "Breaking Bad" that night, didn't you?

In my defense im from philly and a hige phillies fan and we won the world series that night,also cops overcharge so when it goes to court they can drop some charges so you plead out and not go through the hassle of a trial.

 

[skechers]

Well since it's fairly proven that having relatively small amounts of ******* practically doesn't produce as many accidents as other culprits...it's no more dumber than some of the other things. The only thing that makes it dumber to do is risk of excessive penalty.

Speaking of common sense....common sense should tell anyone that merely have some small amounts of ******* in your system is generally safer than some of the other distractions....At least if you've only have a small amount of *******...your eyes are still on the road.

Why risk any reprocussions of drinking and driving, legal or otherwise? To me this is splitting hairs. Copping out. If you were responsible enough to say... "well I've only had a LITTLE to drink. I should be okay to drive." You should be responsible enough to say... "I should get a ride home. Just to be safe."

I mean... unless it's too much trouble. I know some of us can't be bothered with taking too much responsibility.

 

[Boothbabe]

Well since it's fairly proven that having relatively small amounts of ******* practically doesn't produce as many accidents as other culprits...it's no more dumber than some of the other things. The only thing that makes it dumber to do is risk of excessive penalty. (and the increased chance of ******* someone)

Speaking of common sense....common sense should tell anyone that merely have some small amounts of ******* in your system is generally safer than some of the other distractions....At least if you've only have a small amount of *******...your eyes are still on the road.

@ some point you have to realize that some people are just too dumb to learn anything new and that they will hold on to what they believe is true no matter what. I never thought I would reach that point but now I have.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Why risk any reprocussions of drinking and driving, legal or otherwise? To me this is splitting hairs. Copping out. If you were responsible enough to say... "well I've only had a LITTLE to drink. I should be okay to drive." You should be responsible enough to say... "I should get a ride home. Just to be safe."

I mean... unless it's too much trouble. I know some of us can't be bothered with taking too much responsibility.

You could say the same thing about people who fail to follow the speed limit, fail to properly come to a complete stop at stop signs, fail to slow down around sharp corners, fail to turn their headlights on after dusk, fail to stop at red lights, etc.

Doing those things can just as easily cause an accident, yet, nobody gets all bent out of shape about people do that kind of stuff.

"You know, I saw this guy run a red light on the way home from work today and he caused a pretty bad accident. He blew right through the intersection and side swiped a minivan."
"Whatever..."

"You know, I saw this guy driving without his headlights on tonight and he caused a pretty bad accident. Apparently, nobody could see him because it was so dark outside and it ended up causing a 4 car pile up."
"Whatever..."

"You know, I saw this guy get into his car after I saw him leave the bar."
"That SON OF A BITCH!!! Doesn't he know that he ***** driving is dangerous? He could **** somebody!!!"

Once again, I'm not endorsing or even defending ***** driving, but ***** drivers do catch quite a lot of **** even though there are plenty of even more dangerous drivers out there.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Good point Chef, and to expand on that. If you go 66 in a 65 it is not as bad as going 100 in a 65. So why do we give the same punishment to someone who tests at .08 as someone who tests .18?

 

[Facetious]

You are truly unbelievable, shayd presents you with hard evidence and you still don't want to see it. Your uncle was ****** by a ***** driver and here you are, still trying to desperately convince yourself of "facts" wich aren't there. It seems the only thing that can convince you of how dangerous it is is for you to do some ***** driving and wrap your car around a tree.

This is also why I have lost my respect for you, I don't respect stupidity.

A wise man once said : "Never argue with an (and I'll be nice here)
"_ _ _ _ _", observers won't readily be able to discern who is the "_ _ i _ t".

Damn dude. You kind of made your own episode of "Breaking Bad" that night, didn't you?

You noticed that too ! :rofl:



Now if you would x'cuse me, I have some reading to do :
ACME - "Defending the indefensible".

 

[Hot Mega]

@ some point you have to realize that some people are just too dumb to learn anything new and that they will hold on to what they believe is true no matter what. I never thought I would reach that point but now I have.

Uh "Boothebabe" you don't know anything about me nor any of my accomplishments in life. I haven't challenged your integrity, intellect or character nor have I insulted you in any of this back and forth.

We have a simple difference of opinion. I'm mature enough to understand that people won't agree with me 100 pct. of the time and when they don't I simply say "fair enough" without lodging childish insults or put downs.

I'm sorry you're so upset as a result of a topical discussion..but hey, we're all different.

I never expected you to agree and certainly now don't expect you to see where I'm coming any longer as you are obviously incorrigible. That's you're right.

You like to cite "shayd's" references in this thread how about about we get the whole picture of where he plucked some of his data....

You don't buy my ****? How about buying this Phd's..(Shucks,I only have a MSEE).

******* Consumption and Traffic Crashes

by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in an unbiased evaluator of all the causes of traffic crashes, injuries and deaths. The insurance companies that sponsor its work are interested in reducing traffic accidents. Neither the insurance industry nor the Institute has an ideological agenda to promote.

The following information is from the Institute’s web site Question and Answer page about *******:

What proportion of all motor vehicle crashes is caused by *******? It is impossible to say with certainty. Although ******* is known to increase crash likelihood, its presence is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause a crash. Every crash in which a driver has a high BAC is not caused by *******. To learn the number of crashes caused by driving at various BACs, it would be necessary to find out how many trips that do not involve crashes are driven by people with positive BACs -- something that is only measured periodically in roadside surveys or special studies of motorists not involved in crashes.

What proportion of motor vehicle crashes involves *******? The most reliable information about ******* involvement comes from fatal crashes. In 2002, 32 percent of fatally injured drivers had BACs of at least 0.08 percent. Although ******* may not have been a causal factor in all of the crashes, this statistic is frequently used to measure the change over time in ******* involvement in fatal crashes.

In 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that 35 percent of all traffic deaths occurred in crashes in which at least one driver or nonoccupant had a BAC of 0.08 percent or more and that any ******* was present in 41 percent of all fatal crashes in 2002.Such statistics are sometimes cited as proof that a third to half of all fatal crashes are caused by "***** driving" and that none of the crashes that involve ******* would occur if the ******* were not present. But this is incorrect and misleading because ******* is only one of several factors that contribute to crashes involving drinking drivers. Furthermore, some fatally injured people in *******-related crashes are pedestrians with positive BACs, and these fatalities still would occur even if every driver were sober.

******* involvement is much lower in crashes involving nonfatal injuries, and it is lower still in crashes that do not involve injuries at all. 1

Ten percent (10%) of all people who receive injuries in traffic accidents do so in *******-related crashes, according to NHTSA estimates. It is estimated that 3.22% of these injury-producing crashes involve *********** drivers.

Seven percent (7%) of all traffic accidents involve ******* use, according to NHTSA estimates. It is estimated that 2.25% of all vehicular crashes involve *********** drivers.

These statistics are all estimates based on incomplete information. Often they are estimates based on other estimates. However, 12.8% of all drivers involved in fatal accidents in the U.S. during 2001 are known to have been *********** according to the BAC laws (.10 or .08) of their state. This number is based on a systematic examination of the official records of each and every accident involving a fatality during that year in the US. It is based on factual evidence rather than on estimates or guesses.

The higher numbers commonly reported in the press refers to accidents in which NHTSA believes that some ******* has been consumed by someone associated with the accident. For example, if a person who was believed to have consumed any ******* is stopped at a red light and is rear-ended by an inattentive completely sober driver, that accident is considered to be *******-related.

******* consumption, cell phone use, drowsy driving, aggressive driving, and ******* driving are all important but preventable causes of traffic accidents, injuries and deaths. There has been a dramatic and continuing drop in *******-related traffic crashes, but much more needs to be done to prevent ***** driving,

However, virtually ignored have been the other major causes of vehicular crashes. For example, using a cell phone is even more dangerous than driving while ***********. We can and must do even more to reduce traffic crashes from all causes.

A person who dies in a traffic crash is just as dead whether the accident was caused by a ***** driver, a cell phone user, an aggressive driver, or a ******* driver. They must all be stopped.

:thumbsup:

Premium Link Upgrade

 

[ChefChiTown]

Good point Chef, and to expand on that. If you go 66 in a 65 it is not as bad as going 100 in a 65. So why do we give the same punishment to someone who tests at .08 as someone who tests .18?

I've always wondered that too. There are various degrees of ******, so why not various degrees of speeding or driving under the influence? It just makes no sense.

I know that a lot of people will have the point of view that there is a limit for a reason (in respect to BAC while driving), but those are usually the same people who, when they get ticketed for speeding, respond with, "But I was ONLY going 68 in a 65!!! I was ONLY 3 MPH over the limit!!!"

:dunno:

American law...don't you love it?

 

[skechers]

There's no point in defending ***** driving if your going to cite it as a major reason people die in accidents on the road. Either way, bringing up the other reasons why people wreck is no defense.

When you get behind the wheel, you're expected to drive responsible. Not just when it comes to being sober, but in all things. So put away the cellphone, and have a care for what you're doing. We shouldn't be trying to defend one sort of folly by shining a brighter light on the other.

***** drivers are being punished. They should be. I see nothing wrong with punishing the rest. When I drive, I drive safely. It would be nice to get behind the wheel and EXPECT the same behavior from others. But still, I have to watch for the morons.

The less morons driving, the better.

 

[habo9]

Point is you shouldnt have done it!!!!

Stop snivelling like a little girl and deal with like a man , accept your pinishment and admit you are wrong !!!

 

[Stacey]

I could go on for an hours worth of reading on this, but I won't. Heres the simple way to resolve the whole thing. 1) If you are doing something that you know is against the law, don't do it! (What a pain, I know) 2) "First Offense" usually means "First time caught" 3) Throwing keys out the window, masturbating to the theme to Titanic, whatever isn't going to work. Ever see an episode of cops? They have video cameras. They can record you pulling over and throwing your keys out! 4) I drive better when *****. You may be more cautious, because you know if you get caught, you're busted!
You said something about it being the worst night of your life. Keep in mind, you got lucky. Had you ****** someone, it might have really cramped your night.
Advice: Drink, don't drive. Buy drinks and go home and drink.
I've lost three friends due to people that can 'drive better... catlike reflex... first time... happens to someone else..." One day, you may become that 'someone else'.

 

[Hot Mega]

There's no point in defending ***** driving if your going to cite it as a major reason people die in accidents on the road. Either way, bringing up the other reasons why people wreck is no defense.

When you get behind the wheel, you're expected to drive responsible. Not just when it comes to being sober, but in all things. So put away the cellphone, and have a care for what you're doing. We shouldn't be trying to defend one sort of folly by shining a brighter light on the other.

***** drivers are being punished. They should be. I see nothing wrong with punishing the rest. When I drive, I drive safely. It would be nice to get behind the wheel and EXPECT the same behavior from others. But still, I have to watch for the morons.

The less morons driving, the better.

Sighhh. For the last time, no one is defending drinking and driving. It is worth it and instructive to put it in perspective aside from the hyperbole though. Who can defend any irresponsible behavior that can result in death??

But to assert mere drinking some amount of ******* then driving necessarily produces more practical (in real life not on a lab) likelihood for accident is not supported by the facts. Now that is not a defense of drinking and driving no matter how it sounds. It is a statement that is either correct or incorrect. I believe the statement is correct. In order to understand why I conclude that you'd probably need to know where I'm coming from on it.

From what I've seen over the course of my life, vehicular accidents are just an inherent product of driving...there is no rhyme or reason...it just is. Just like milling some component by automated machine...no matter how precise the machine is on spec....it will produce a certain amount of rejected components. Why, because all things no matter how precise have error margins. People too...ergo human beings are not perfect.

So when I see the number of accidents that happen related to the fairly minuscule amounts of them that are ******* related as compared to all the other accidents and overall number them. The hyperbole just doesn't match the facts.

Even if you conclude it is a sheer numbers game and the number of those who drive and drink is fairly low as an explanation. That should seem more supportive that we're worrying about a small group which cause an even smaller number of accidents even when you junk up the numbers with stats that don't really relate to ******* as a causal effect but just the presence of it.

Some argue the high ratio of deaths as compared to others....but they most assuredly leave out other factors such as speed which could and most likely be the cause in the majority of deaths.

Don't drink and drive. However if you don't want to be in a vehicular accident I would say don't drive BUT even that wouldn't be true as staying home one could have their home bulldozed by an inattentive driver as has happened many times in the past.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

@ some point you have to realize that some people are just too dumb to learn anything new and that they will hold on to what they believe is true no matter what. I never thought I would reach that point but now I have.

Not true and not nice. Open your eyes and read the statistics. Mega is saying the truth.......no where did he say it's a good idea to drink and drive.

 

[shayd]

More likely to crash based on the assumption of what affect ******* has on some physical ability. Not practical application to people who actually drink then drive. What a study on motor function can never determine is the psychology of the individual, circumstances in which the impairment takes place, etc. Again, it seems you and I are split on practical versus clinical results.

I think you missed this from the journal:

as the scientific evidence about ******* consumption level and psycho motor functions impairment came to clear. A landmark event in the development of policies regarding impaired driving was the establishment of the fact that consumption of ******* does, in fact, increase the probability of traffic crashes

Psycho motor functions are motor functions predisposed to influence of a mental state of condition. Thus, we can, and do have a clear picture of a persons psychology in these tests, as well as the circumstances in which they occur (that's sort of the point of clinical testing).

Again, clinical and theoretical conclusions are helpful but not determinative in many cases...Certainly if a bumble bee went by theory and clinical study...it would have been convinced it couldn't fly as it's ability to fly is in contravention to almost all known theories of aeronautical engineering.:2 cents:

I obviously would agree that there are cases which practically will not match up with the clinical data. However scientists like to call these outliers, or exceptional cases, and they are far outnumbered by the cases by which clinical discussion and experimentation apply, otherwise the clinical trial would not have any reason to exist. Of course it is impossible to predict every single plausible case that's just reality. But the job of science is to control for that, and search for patterns that suggests larger correlations, and then to explore if indeed the correlations hold true. This is precisely what the numbers indicate in every study I've read, all the information the government makes available (including those outside the United States), and the two studies I've cited above.

But not to beat a dead *****, the references "shayd" cites only show what affect ******* has on motor function..from that it concludes thus and so with respect to driving....

Nowhere did it cite real, practical application of it's conclusions...as a practical study would hardly be practical to perform. And forget what you see with these **** trying to navigate through cones after a ****. That doesn't represent real driving nor situations where the margin for error is that tight.

Having said all of that, while I drink, I don't binge drink, drink to get ***** and I don't drink and drive. But I'm sure you knew that.

See previous comment, or read the abstract.

You like to cite "shayd's" references in this thread how about about we get the whole picture of where he plucked some of his data....

You don't buy my ****? How about buying this Phd's..(Shucks,I only have a MSEE).

:thumbsup:

Premium Link Upgrade

If the NHTSA numbers are what your problem is, then I don't know what to tell you. If that is the case, you're basically throwing out the national crime rate, unemployment rate, and essentially anything else where something could theoretically provide bogus results (even if those are few in number). What you've essentially taken issue additionally with is the scientific process, and the ways in which academic research are conducted. That precludes you from believing any sort of medical research of medicine, which I'm sure you can admit, is beyond absurd.

But that still doesn't explain why the University of Tsukuba, and the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation both came to the same conclusion that driving *****, or with any ******* at all in your ***** significantly increases the risk of causing an accident, and being involved in a fatal accident. Both of those are completely unrelated to the NHTSA, and have gathered their own data, which supports the data I've already provided. Bottom line is, if you've got issues with the scientific process particularly how data is collected and potential insignificant inaccuracies, then I guess we'll just disagree, but again, science controls for that.

But don't let the numbers get in the way of a good story.

 

[Hot Mega]

But don't let the numbers get in the way of a good story.

Clinical testing is only relevant primarily where practical application can be simulated, ergo all clinical testing is not equal. Why are some performed then? Well if you need or want to have a basis or baseline for benchmarking then you must generate some clinical test or some statistic....irrespective of how fraught with fault they may be. That's why some say, "statistics lie and liars use statistics" because some statistics are anything but determinative. You seem to think all tests and statististics are determinative. They're not. Some can only be extrapolative. Insomuch as they are, they can only arrive at anecdotal and in some cases anecdotally misleading (results which tend to lead one away from fact) conclusions.

Extrapolitive tests and statistics are far less useful than determinative tests and statistics.

If you merely need or want to examine the effect of ******* on motor function, tests can be performed which render clearly determinative results. However, if you want to determine what actually happens when a person drives with some degree of it in their system
(for example), using it's effects on motor function is only extrapolative.

Another example would be if I used incarceration statististics and ratio as a determinative factor in the likelihood of Blacks (for example) to commit crime versus Whites. Most reasonable people would think it be silly to conclude based on those statistics that a Black person is more inclined to commit crime, irrespective of circumstance than would a White person simply because of their skin color. To actually determine likelihood, that raw data would fairly require more analysis and information if available.

Another, more elementary example....just because clinical tests have determined the ingredients in Viagra produce erections when impotent men are aroused, they will now necessarily "get some". Getting an erection and "getting some" are two different things. It can't even be extrapolated that they will "get some" as the circumstance is condition based....like driving after having drank *******.

If 10 impotent men take Viagra then are told blindly to go have sex..some may, all may or none may. Even though the likelihood and odds of them being able to have sex has increased dramatically because of the effect of Viagra, the effect has minimal bearing on the secondary conditions needed to have sex. No different than if 10 men drank some degree of ******* then were told to drive until it's effects wore off. Some may cause an accident, all may or none may because again, the effects of ******* have minimal bearing on the secondary conditions necessary to produce an accident. Therefore the only thing certain is that ******* and Viagra produce physiological and psychological effects.

Since extrapolative conclusions are almost solely condition based, they are almost unimportant if relevant at all.

 

[Boothbabe]

Since extrapolative conclusions are almost solely condition based, they are almost unimportant if relevant at all.

Right now, somewhere on earth someone has caused an accident and maybe even ****** someone because he or she thought it was still ok to drive. That's what's important.

All of these arguments about if, how and to what degree ******* affects a persons ability to drive a car do not matter because people are ****** every day by ***** drivers.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Right now, somewhere on earth someone has caused an accident and maybe even ****** someone because he or she thought it was still ok to drive. That's what's important.

All of these arguments about if, how and to what degree ******* affects a persons ability to drive a car do not matter because people are ****** every day by ***** drivers.

True, but the same can be said for just about anything.

 

[Hot Mega]

Right now, somewhere on earth someone has caused an accident and maybe even ****** someone because he or she thought it was still ok to drive. That's what's important.

All of these arguments about if, how and to what degree ******* affects a persons ability to drive a car do not matter because people are ****** every day by ***** drivers.

More important than people ****** by any other accidental means like falls, non vehicular accidents, poisoning/overdose, drowning, smoke or fire, surgery, etc.?

 

[Nester6]

Trust me. Today, you can not drink and drive at all. Just call a cab or stay home. You may save your own or someone else's life. Tough laws on this are a good thing.