The Danger of Drinking and Driving

[ggiese]

I never do. Learned my lesson a long time ago. I was hammered one night and got stopped by the VT. State Police. He asked me to take the breath test. I blew a .04. I believe the machine was broke. If he'd of asked me to get out of the car I'd have fallen down. I took this a sign from Providence and haven't driven even after one drink since.

Doc.

It took me to an .07 to feel like that. At .04 I was functioning absolutely fine. Tolerance certainly has a huge effect on that...

Of course - there's a reason that the states have made it illegal for truckers to have anything above an .04 in their system...

I do know that I pray to the porcelain god somewhere around a .15. And I've arrested people functioning at a .45 or above (two, to be exact). You and I would be dead by then...

My mom (who worked as a psychiatric nurse in an alcohol treatment unit) used to make fun of the drunks I'd arrest that were below a .15. She said those were maintenance levels for most alcoholics she worked with.

 

[Shooter]

A welcome service here in Louisville is called City Scoot. If you are to drunk to drive, give them a call and depending on where you live, they will show up on a collapsable scooter. They put it in your trunk, drive your car home with as many people in it as there are seat belts, get out the scooter and off they go to another customer. All for about ten more dollars than a cab ride.

 

[Nathan Rahl]

Even though I am underage, I do drink every weekend or so. Usually it is at my house or another friends house with about 5 or 6 of my friends. The one rule my parents have when we drink is that all keys go right to my mom before anyone opens a beer. Most of my friends would never drink and drive even if they had their keys, but this prevents any alcohol induced retardedness. My parents are also very cautious about drinking and driving, they will usually make me drive them anywhere if they have had more than 2 beers.

edit: because I can't spell

 

[ggiese]

Drunk drivers are just bad.

Despite this thread being taken off-topic on a few occasions, I guess this essentially is getting back to the root question. I believe this to be your proposition in starting this with, I believe, the flawed poll. I think there has been some very useful discussion in this thread about what, possibly, a "drunk driver" is.

So the initial question first posed by CC, "is the drunk driving thing a myth?", really has some interesting facets of concern to the community. On one hand - it's clearly bad to drink and drive. On the other hand - what is "drunk driving".

I don't know if we're going to be able to adequately satisfy anyone's opinions in this thread...

But certainly this thread keeps coming back to the core question - and I again reiterate (at the risk of sounding redundant) that "drinking and driving" (as opposed to "drunk driving") needs to be taken as part of the whole driving strategy. (With emphasis on "impaired" driving)

 

[CoventryCat86]

So the initial question first posed by CC, "is the drunk driving thing a myth?", really has some interesting facets of concern to the community. On one hand - it's clearly bad to drink and drive. On the other hand - what is "drunk driving".

I don't know if we're going to be able to adequately satisfy anyone's opinions in this thread...

But certainly this thread keeps coming back to the core question - and I again reiterate (at the risk of sounding redundant) that "drinking and driving" (as opposed to "drunk driving") needs to be taken as part of the whole driving strategy. (With emphasis on "impaired" driving)

I'm glad you brought this up George because actually the main problem with shawks poll here is that it was clearly started as a backhanded slap at me for expressing my opinion which was this:

Sorry Erick but thehatguy opened the door. I have "personal" reasons as well for feeling the way I do too. I truly believe that society has gone way too far with the whole drinking and driving thing over the past ten years. The local police department in a nearby community to me was just bragging about how they had 330 DWI arrests over the past year. Contrary to the popular myth that drinking and driving is responsible for all this supposed trouble, less than TEN PERCENT of their arrests involved accidents and NO ONE was hurt. I can go on and on but I'll spare this board the details. You're right, no need to debate that "hot potato" here.

As you can clearly see, I NEVER said:

The danger attributed to drinking and driving is a popular myth

shawk twisted my words to something that I did not say so he could make his flawed poll come out the way he wanted to so he could justify flaming me. What he cannot understand or respect is when someone has an opinion that is different from his own. I still feel very storongly that it's a "myth" that drinking and driving is responsible for "all this trouble" which means people getting injured and maimed in automobile accidents. As George pointed out there are FAR many other reasons that people cause accidents with alcohol being a very SMALL part of the overall equation.

If my mother got shot to death by someone with a hand gun, should I be screaming at the top of my lungs that we should outlaw hand guns? I don't think so.......

If we are so concerned around here about wasting internet resources, this ridiculous" "poll" should have been locked or deleted right from the get go since it's as clear as day what it's underlying intention was.

 

[ggiese]

I disagree with you there, Bill. I think shawk was being reactionary, no doubt. But I also think it was a topic worth discussing. While his views were contrary to yours, his overall concern about drinking and driving is valid. I hope through this discussion, he has a better appreciation of the variety of opinions on this very matter. And especially on what it takes to be a "drunk driver".

Overwhelmingly this community has shown in their responses that they take the drinking and driving issue seriously, even if the poll was flawed. I'd think that this poll would have been far different 20 years ago.

But - the poll also brings attention to some popular misconceptions about drinking and driving. And my comments concerning impairment in general. Hopefully everone walks away with a deeper appreciation of what was initially proposed in this thread, and what the thinking was between the various sides of the argument, despite a lack of agreement.

 

[grateful1]

I disagree with you there, Bill. I think shawk was being reactionary, no doubt. But I also think it was a topic worth discussing. While his views were contrary to yours, his overall concern about drinking and driving is valid. I hope through this discussion, he has a better appreciation of the variety of opinions on this very matter. And especially on what it takes to be a "drunk driver".

Overwhelmingly this community has shown in their responses that they take the drinking and driving issue seriously, even if the poll was flawed. I'd think that this poll would have been far different 20 years ago.

But - the poll also brings attention to some popular misconceptions about drinking and driving. And my comments concerning impairment in general. Hopefully everone walks away with a deeper appreciation of what was initially proposed in this thread, and what the sides of the argument are.

Oh great...now you two are going to go at it!




It's simple(to me) - being drinking 'impairs' a person. The BAC numbers are not in question...what is in question is the effect that booze has on a person. This is un-known (qualified with---->) PER PERSON.
General studies and statistics are just that - general!
Similar as how a certain cigar effects someone differently then another.
My buddy can't smoke a cameroon wrappered stick w/o geting ill! (more opi for me!)

The premise of the poll is too broad to allow for an effective result.
Although the result seems like most are in agreement - is it because they answered the same question...or because their thought proccess lead to the same idea and the ONLY answer left was to choose the most likely?

Simple poll - would you drink alcohol and drive? Yes or no?

Now - enough of this minutia...I'm off to smoke a ceegar and hit some golf balls....no work until Tueday!

If someone want to discuss this further I'd be glad to debate in the chat room...at a later date! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

<edit-sp>

 

[CoventryCat86]

I disagree with you there, Bill. I think shawk was being reactionary, no doubt. But I also think it was a topic worth discussing. While his views were contrary to yours, his overall concern about drinking and driving is valid. I hope through this discussion, he has a better appreciation of the variety of opinions on this very matter. And especially on what it takes to be a "drunk driver".

Overwhelmingly this community has shown in their responses that they take the drinking and driving issue seriously, even if the poll was flawed. I'd think that this poll would have been far different 20 years ago.

But - the poll also brings attention to some popular misconceptions about drinking and driving. And my comments concerning impairment in general. Hopefully everone walks away with a deeper appreciation of what was initially proposed in this thread, and what the thinking was between the various sides of the argument, despite a lack of agreement.

It may be a "topic worth discussing" but we all know why he started this "poll" He took offense to an opinion that I expressed that was different from his and he tried, and failed to grind his axe here.

 

[kiltedcraftsman]

I disagree with you there, Bill. I think shawk was being reactionary, no doubt. But I also think it was a topic worth discussing. While his views were contrary to yours, his overall concern about drinking and driving is valid. I hope through this discussion, he has a better appreciation of the variety of opinions on this very matter. And especially on what it takes to be a "drunk driver".

Overwhelmingly this community has shown in their responses that they take the drinking and driving issue seriously, even if the poll was flawed. I'd think that this poll would have been far different 20 years ago.

But - the poll also brings attention to some popular misconceptions about drinking and driving. And my comments concerning impairment in general. Hopefully everone walks away with a deeper appreciation of what was initially proposed in this thread, and what the thinking was between the various sides of the argument, despite a lack of agreement.

It may be a "topic worth discussing" but we all know why he started this "poll" He took offense to an opinion that I expressed that was different from his and he tried, and failed to grind his axe here.

 

[ggiese]

I'm sorry, Kilted - but maybe you missed this - I believe shawk already addressed this situation in this thread:

In answer to your question, though... I am of the opinion that you should never post unless you have something pertinent to add. Your post above does not meet that standard. So... in this example... IMO, it was not okay for you to post.

<apologies to all for the threadjack>

<apologies to all for the threadjack>

 

[stevehawk]

Oh, I think it meets the standard... :laugh:

 

[ggiese]

Oh, I think it meets the standard... :laugh:

Oh, excellent - the standard for the thread has been changed by the person starting the thread!!!


shawk - working the thread over...

 

[stevehawk]

Oh, I think it meets the standard... :laugh:

Oh, excellent - the standard for the thread has been changed by the person starting the thread!!!


shawk - working the thread over...

 

[ggiese]

Although this is all quite amusing, I'm a bit dismayed at the turn this thread has taken... From a serious discussion about the issue of drinking and driving, to members posting pictures about horses being beaten.

Seriously, though - if shawk was posting this thread for the purpose of discussing the serious issue of drinking and driving, that would be of benefit to the entire community. If it was for the express purpose of challenging an individual member over hurt feelings, or perceived transgressions, then this thread would be very wrong for the good of the entire community and future instances of this should be curtailed.

 

[SamClemmons]

Ah'm tellin' Todd. Yer in big trouble.

NA

 

[CoventryCat86]

Although this is all quite amusing, I'm a bit dismayed at the turn this thread has taken... From a serious discussion about the issue of drinking and driving, to members posting pictures about horses being beaten.

Seriously, though - if shawk was posting this thread for the purpose of discussing the serious issue of drinking and driving, that would be of benefit to the entire community. If it was for the express purpose of challenging an individual member over hurt feelings, or perceived transgressions, then this thread would be very wrong for the good of the entire community and future instances of this should be curtailed.

It was never a "serious discussion" George, shawk misrepresented what I said in the BBQ thread in order to inflame people. I also noticed that when you caught him being duplicitous, he offered no explanation, just gave a "whatever" and carries on like nothing's wrong with him.

Once again, this farce should have been locked immediately in the interest of not wasting bandwidth which Rod has stated he's concerned about.

shawk, if you want to debate "hot" political issues, go join Scroto over on "America's Debate." This is a cigar board, not a place for political debate.

 

[Devil Doc]

I'm beggining to think that Neil and I share the same pathology. At first I was annoyed by this BS but now I'm ammused. :laugh: So let's have more. My wife is at work and I ain't got nothin' better to do.

Doc.

 

[ggiese]

Although this is all quite amusing, I'm a bit dismayed at the turn this thread has taken... From a serious discussion about the issue of drinking and driving, to members posting pictures about horses being beaten.

Seriously, though - if shawk was posting this thread for the purpose of discussing the serious issue of drinking and driving, that would be of benefit to the entire community. If it was for the express purpose of challenging an individual member over hurt feelings, or perceived transgressions, then this thread would be very wrong for the good of the entire community and future instances of this should be curtailed.

I was never a "serious discussion" George, shawk misrepresented what I said in the BBQ thread in order to inflame people. I also noticed that when you pointed out that he's being duplicitous, he offers no explanation, just gives a "whatever" and just ignores that fact.

Once again, this farce should have been locked immediately in the interest of not wasting bandwidth which Rod has stated he's concerned about.

shawk, if you want to debate "hot" political issues, go join Scroto over on "America's Debate." This is a cigar board, not a place to discuss hot button political issues.

Bill - I disagree. I'm not sure what shawks intention was. No doubt this thread was fueled by his angst in the BBQ herf thread, most likely because of his feelings about his mother being killed in a car accident. I can empathize with that. Shawk made some very reasoned posts in that regard, and the discussion was very useful to a sector of the commuity.

But - I agree with you that this thread should not have been started for the sole purpose of hotly debating a politically charged issue, like drunk driving, for the sole purpose of trying to make another member look silly. I don't care how you try to spin it, that does not benefit this community whatsoever.

And it also does not benefit the community when certain individuals jump into this thread not even offering anything more than posting assinine pictures that have nothing to do with the initial discussion. Even if your justification is, "well, he started it first..."

I'm beggining to think that Neil and I share the same pathology. At first I was annoyed by this BS but now I'm ammused. :laugh: So let's have more. My wife is at work and I ain't got nothin' better to do.

Doc.

Excuse me, Doc - but you have to restrain yourself from going off topic unless you've gotten the permission of the person initiating this thread. He says so...

...although, admittedly, he's changed the standard a few posts back... :whistling:

<apologies to all for the threadjack>

 

[CoventryCat86]

Bill - I disagree. I'm not sure what shawks intention was.

George - I disagree. It's as clear as day what his intention was. He had an axe to grind with me and to make matters worse, he twisted my original words when he wrote this poll to imply that I said something that I did not which is deceitful to say the least.
It's no coincidence that he started this poll less than 24 hours after my post in the BBQ thread and used his misquote of my statement as option #2 in his poll.

His track records of starting polls around here for genuine reasons is spotty at best.