Religions > Atheism > OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bill, The Avender" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2003 05:04:57 PM |
| Object: |
OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
Sorry for the OT, but this seems like the kind of thing that is of
interest to a significant segment of the a.a. population. This made
me ill. Being a safe driver in no way means that you're safe while
driving. :-# AFAIC, this should've been life imprisonment.
Negligence to this extreme of a degree is inexcusable at best, and I
lack the language for expressing what it is at worst.
<quoted post from alt.true-crime by "ronnie">
Is this the first "black box" trial in North America?
Regardless, coming soon to a courtroom near you ;)
(Gauthier was lucky; he was acquitted of criminal negligence causing death,
and convicted instead of the lesser charge of dangerous driving causing
death, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. St. Catherine
Street is THE MAJOR thoroughfare in Montreal and the center of the city's
commercial district and nightlife, along which only a sociopath would drive
157 km/h.)
"Black box clocked fatal speed
But driver convicted of only lesser charge
CATHERINE SOLYOM
The [Montreal] Gazette
Saturday, October 25, 2003
[photo]
(CREDIT: RICHARD ARLESS JR,THE GAZETTE
Eric Gauthier heads down hallway yesterday after his conviction for
dangerous driving causing the death of Yacine Zinet. The judge rejected a
more serious charge of criminal negligence. )
Three seconds before smashing into Yacine Zinet's car, Eric Gauthier was
driving 157 kilometres per hour down Ste. Catherine St. in his new Pontiac
Sunfire.
Zinet, a first-year student at École des hautes études commerciales, didn't
live to tell about the accident in April 2001, in which his car was wrapped
like tinfoil around a traffic light, sending the green, yellow and red bulbs
flying 30 metres.
But the black box retrieved from Gauthier's car was unequivocal: the
recording device, which stores data on how a car is driven in the last five
seconds before a collision, showed that four seconds before impact, the gas
pedal was floored."
http://tinyurl.com/scrw
--
L8r,
Bill, The Avender
-------------------------------------------------
Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
-------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
27 Oct 2003 01:31:12 PM |
|
|
(Bill, The Avender) wrote in message news:<3fa4f21c.24949711@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
Sorry for the OT, but this seems like the kind of thing that is of
interest to a significant segment of the a.a. population. This made
me ill. Being a safe driver in no way means that you're safe while
driving. :-# AFAIC, this should've been life imprisonment.
Negligence to this extreme of a degree is inexcusable at best, and I
lack the language for expressing what it is at worst.
<quoted post from alt.true-crime by "ronnie">
Is this the first "black box" trial in North America?
Regardless, coming soon to a courtroom near you ;)
(Gauthier was lucky; he was acquitted of criminal negligence causing death,
and convicted instead of the lesser charge of dangerous driving causing
death, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. St. Catherine
Street is THE MAJOR thoroughfare in Montreal and the center of the city's
commercial district and nightlife, along which only a sociopath would drive
157 km/h.)
"Black box clocked fatal speed
But driver convicted of only lesser charge
CATHERINE SOLYOM
The [Montreal] Gazette
Saturday, October 25, 2003
[photo]
(CREDIT: RICHARD ARLESS JR,THE GAZETTE
Eric Gauthier heads down hallway yesterday after his conviction for
dangerous driving causing the death of Yacine Zinet. The judge rejected a
more serious charge of criminal negligence. )
Three seconds before smashing into Yacine Zinet's car, Eric Gauthier was
driving 157 kilometres per hour down Ste. Catherine St. in his new Pontiac
Sunfire.
Zinet, a first-year student at École des hautes études commerciales, didn't
live to tell about the accident in April 2001, in which his car was wrapped
like tinfoil around a traffic light, sending the green, yellow and red bulbs
flying 30 metres.
But the black box retrieved from Gauthier's car was unequivocal: the
recording device, which stores data on how a car is driven in the last five
seconds before a collision, showed that four seconds before impact, the gas
pedal was floored."
http://tinyurl.com/scrw
The real issue here is that black box. The law cannot just take it
and play it off in court. It is private property. A warrent is
needed to grab it. I expect a lawsuit real soon to force the
manufacturers to allow the owner to turn the damn things off.
jwk
who speeds, but is still the safest driver in town
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
27 Oct 2003 05:34:11 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 27 Oct 2003 11:31:12 -0800,
(jwk) wrote:
<snip>
The real issue here is that black box. The law cannot just take it
and play it off in court. It is private property. A warrent is
needed to grab it. I expect a lawsuit real soon to force the
manufacturers to allow the owner to turn the damn things off.
I'm not so sure about that. Your driver's license isn't private
property, and you can't legally drive without it. If it's a
government requirement that cars be made with such devices, it may
also be something the government is able to retain the right to
regulate. Like the license plate or the title. You don't actually
"own" either of these things, else you wouldn't have to keep paying
for them.
I don't know, of course. I hadn't heard about these black boxes until
this story, so I may be way off base. But I don't think it's
automatically considered "private property" just because it's included
in a vehicle you've bought.
--
L8r,
Bill, The Avender
-------------------------------------------------
Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
-------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
28 Oct 2003 08:14:55 AM |
|
|
(Bill, The Avender) wrote in message news:<3fa0aace.46210182@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...
In alt.atheism on 27 Oct 2003 11:31:12 -0800,
(jwk) wrote:
<snip>
The real issue here is that black box. The law cannot just take it
and play it off in court. It is private property. A warrent is
needed to grab it. I expect a lawsuit real soon to force the
manufacturers to allow the owner to turn the damn things off.
I'm not so sure about that. Your driver's license isn't private
property, and you can't legally drive without it. If it's a
government requirement that cars be made with such devices, it may
also be something the government is able to retain the right to
regulate. Like the license plate or the title. You don't actually
"own" either of these things, else you wouldn't have to keep paying
for them.
I don't know, of course. I hadn't heard about these black boxes until
this story, so I may be way off base. But I don't think it's
automatically considered "private property" just because it's included
in a vehicle you've bought.
I actually have hear of these things. They are your private property,
although some jurisdictions have behaved as if they were not. Cases
were thrown out because of this. A subpoena is needed. The problem
with them is that the car companies put them in without telling people
they were there and acted as if the boxes belonged to them (the
manufacturer). Most people don't want something monitoring their
driving that they did not agree to. Especially when they have to pay
for it and it does nothing for them. There are models you can have
installed to monitor your childrens driving, but you are not able to
access the black box the manufacturer put in your own car.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
28 Oct 2003 09:16:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:34:11 GMT, (Bill, The
Avender) posted in alt.atheism:
I'm not so sure about that. Your driver's license isn't private
property, and you can't legally drive without it. If it's a
government requirement that cars be made with such devices, it may
also be something the government is able to retain the right to
regulate. Like the license plate or the title. You don't actually
"own" either of these things, else you wouldn't have to keep paying
for them.
The fifth amendment come into play here. ALL parts of a car, as you
purchase it (you don't "purchase" a license plate) are your property.
Being forced to give the government your property to use as evidence
against you is unconstitutional.
I don't know, of course. I hadn't heard about these black boxes until
this story, so I may be way off base. But I don't think it's
automatically considered "private property" just because it's included
in a vehicle you've bought.
It is. You bought it, you own it and the government, so far, can't
force you to provide it as evidence against yourself without a court
order.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
27 Oct 2003 07:42:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:34:11 GMT, (Bill, The
Avender) wrote:
In alt.atheism on 27 Oct 2003 11:31:12 -0800,
(jwk) wrote:
<snip>
The real issue here is that black box. The law cannot just take it
and play it off in court. It is private property. A warrent is
needed to grab it. I expect a lawsuit real soon to force the
manufacturers to allow the owner to turn the damn things off.
I'm not so sure about that. Your driver's license isn't private
property, and you can't legally drive without it. If it's a
government requirement that cars be made with such devices, it may
also be something the government is able to retain the right to
regulate. Like the license plate or the title. You don't actually
"own" either of these things, else you wouldn't have to keep paying
for them.
I don't know, of course. I hadn't heard about these black boxes until
this story, so I may be way off base. But I don't think it's
automatically considered "private property" just because it's included
in a vehicle you've bought.
I believe that in the USA your car is your private property, yet at an
accident scene, they'll analyze it, photograph it, search it, etc -
basically do whatever it takes to get enough info to place blame,
responsibility, liability, etc.
I guess that wouldn't hold on private property, someone would have to
sue. But on a public road, I'm pretty sure that the state must
investigate.
We probably waive privacy in fine print somewhere in the license or
registration when we signed the dotted line.
Since the data is strictly the reading of the car info, like speed,
pedal position, etc it wouldn't be private in my opinion.
I would like to be assured that any "black box" would not be used for
tracking, however. I wonder how "Lo Jack" (stolen car tracer) owners
feel about that.
?
drift
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
26 Oct 2003 11:18:19 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:04:57 GMT, (Bill, The
Avender) wrote:
Sorry for the OT, but this seems like the kind of thing that is of
interest to a significant segment of the a.a. population. This made
me ill. Being a safe driver in no way means that you're safe while
driving. :-# AFAIC, this should've been life imprisonment.
Negligence to this extreme of a degree is inexcusable at best, and I
lack the language for expressing what it is at worst.
<quoted post from alt.true-crime by "ronnie">
Is this the first "black box" trial in North America?
Regardless, coming soon to a courtroom near you ;)
(Gauthier was lucky; he was acquitted of criminal negligence causing death,
and convicted instead of the lesser charge of dangerous driving causing
death, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. St. Catherine
Street is THE MAJOR thoroughfare in Montreal and the center of the city's
commercial district and nightlife, along which only a sociopath would drive
157 km/h.)
"Black box clocked fatal speed
But driver convicted of only lesser charge
CATHERINE SOLYOM
The [Montreal] Gazette
Saturday, October 25, 2003
[photo]
(CREDIT: RICHARD ARLESS JR,THE GAZETTE
Eric Gauthier heads down hallway yesterday after his conviction for
dangerous driving causing the death of Yacine Zinet. The judge rejected a
more serious charge of criminal negligence. )
Three seconds before smashing into Yacine Zinet's car, Eric Gauthier was
driving 157 kilometres per hour down Ste. Catherine St. in his new Pontiac
Sunfire.
Zinet, a first-year student at École des hautes études commerciales, didn't
live to tell about the accident in April 2001, in which his car was wrapped
like tinfoil around a traffic light, sending the green, yellow and red bulbs
flying 30 metres.
But the black box retrieved from Gauthier's car was unequivocal: the
recording device, which stores data on how a car is driven in the last five
seconds before a collision, showed that four seconds before impact, the gas
pedal was floored."
http://tinyurl.com/scrw
If a Black Box could properly determine fault, OK.
As an example, if it could prove that a sober driver was at fault when
the other driver was drunk, I'd be glad. That could save us from the
condescending assumption that alcohol caused the accident. Actually,
they say alcohol causes about 40%, so the majority goes to the sober
60% of drivers. So you are 20% better off driving drunk.
In general, if it could weed out the truly bad drivers we'd be better
off. The insurance companies would save money, and we'd have to get
legislation passed to force them to pass that savings to the
policyholders.
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
26 Oct 2003 12:26:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:18:19 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
As an example, if it could prove that a sober driver was at fault when
the other driver was drunk, I'd be glad. That could save us from the
condescending assumption that alcohol caused the accident. Actually,
they say alcohol causes about 40%, so the majority goes to the sober
60% of drivers. So you are 20% better off driving drunk.
Now there's a classic case of innumeracy.
--
Zymurgist # 2
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
26 Oct 2003 03:00:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:26:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:18:19 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
As an example, if it could prove that a sober driver was at fault when
the other driver was drunk, I'd be glad. That could save us from the
condescending assumption that alcohol caused the accident. Actually,
they say alcohol causes about 40%, so the majority goes to the sober
60% of drivers. So you are 20% better off driving drunk.
Now there's a classic case of innumeracy.
I think the quote was from comedian Steven Wright, gotta give credit
where it's due: but aint it the truth?
What happens if someone drinks six beers, drives and collides with
someone who had five beers because they were both puzzled at the
idiotic moves some sober driver is making?
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
26 Oct 2003 04:46:36 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:00:35 -0500, a stranger
called by some came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:26:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:18:19 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
As an example, if it could prove that a sober driver was at fault when
the other driver was drunk, I'd be glad. That could save us from the
condescending assumption that alcohol caused the accident. Actually,
they say alcohol causes about 40%, so the majority goes to the sober
60% of drivers. So you are 20% better off driving drunk.
Now there's a classic case of innumeracy.
I think the quote was from comedian Steven Wright, gotta give credit
where it's due: but aint it the truth?
What happens if someone drinks six beers, drives and collides with
someone who had five beers because they were both puzzled at the
idiotic moves some sober driver is making?
The driver who hit the other car is at fault. Both morons are
arrested for drunk driving.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
26 Oct 2003 06:51:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:46:36 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
The driver who hit the other car is at fault.
Not always, in all states.
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
26 Oct 2003 09:25:25 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:51:03 GMT, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:46:36 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
The driver who hit the other car is at fault.
Not always, in all states.
True. Here in Tennessee, I had a really incredibly obnoxious
tailgater. I mean those headlights sank beneath the lid of my
trunk,almost as soon as she came up behind me. That's how close she
was. So I decided, "If I'm gonna' do it, I might as well do it now.
After all, I could always use a new car." I hit the brake. I'm happy
to report that my poorly-thought-out intentions failed to manifest the
expected results (IOW, she didn't hit me).
In a case like this if she _would_ have hit me, even though I was the
guilty party, I do believe it's most fair to make the driver in front
(that would be me) liable (what's good for the goose is good for the
gander and all that jazz..."). Thing is, in rear-enders in general,
it's not easy to tell which way it happened. Did the front vehicle
slow down too abrubtly for the back vehicle to react? Or was the
driver of the back vehicle simply not paying attention to the road?
Granted we, as drivers, have a responsibility to be aware of our
surroundings _and_ the road. This includes keeping back a safe
distance in order to have some reactive response should an accident
occur up ahead. So if my tailgator was simply not paying attention or
some such, I'd say she should be liable for at least half of the
incurred expenses and perhaps a few charges of dangerous driving. I,
of course, would get all that plus wreckless endangerment and possibly
- were a death involved and the "right" language were used - the death
penalty.
--
L8r,
Bill, The Avender
-------------------------------------------------
Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
-------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark W" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
27 Oct 2003 09:37:56 AM |
|
|
"Bill, The Avender" <Avender@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:3fa88bf3.17413621@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
In alt.atheism on Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:51:03 GMT, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:46:36 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
The driver who hit the other car is at fault.
Not always, in all states.
True. Here in Tennessee, I had a really incredibly obnoxious
tailgater. I mean those headlights sank beneath the lid of my
trunk,almost as soon as she came up behind me. That's how close she
was. So I decided, "If I'm gonna' do it, I might as well do it now.
After all, I could always use a new car." I hit the brake. I'm happy
to report that my poorly-thought-out intentions failed to manifest the
expected results (IOW, she didn't hit me).
In a case like this if she _would_ have hit me, even though I was the
guilty party, I do believe it's most fair to make the driver in front
(that would be me) liable (what's good for the goose is good for the
gander and all that jazz..."). Thing is, in rear-enders in general,
it's not easy to tell which way it happened. Did the front vehicle
slow down too abrubtly for the back vehicle to react? Or was the
driver of the back vehicle simply not paying attention to the road?
Granted we, as drivers, have a responsibility to be aware of our
surroundings _and_ the road. This includes keeping back a safe
distance in order to have some reactive response should an accident
occur up ahead. So if my tailgator was simply not paying attention or
some such, I'd say she should be liable for at least half of the
incurred expenses and perhaps a few charges of dangerous driving. I,
of course, would get all that plus wreckless endangerment and possibly
- were a death involved and the "right" language were used - the death
penalty.
She'd be guilty, because she was driving too close to allow sufficient time
to stop. If, for example, you had braked suddenly for someone running into
the road she would have hit you because of how close she was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
27 Oct 2003 04:48:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:37:56 -0000, "Mark W" <mark.whickman@ic.ac.uk>
wrote:
"Bill, The Avender" <Avender@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:3fa88bf3.17413621@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
In alt.atheism on Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:51:03 GMT, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:46:36 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
The driver who hit the other car is at fault.
Not always, in all states.
True. Here in Tennessee, I had a really incredibly obnoxious
tailgater. I mean those headlights sank beneath the lid of my
trunk,almost as soon as she came up behind me. That's how close she
was. So I decided, "If I'm gonna' do it, I might as well do it now.
After all, I could always use a new car." I hit the brake. I'm happy
to report that my poorly-thought-out intentions failed to manifest the
expected results (IOW, she didn't hit me).
In a case like this if she _would_ have hit me, even though I was the
guilty party, I do believe it's most fair to make the driver in front
(that would be me) liable (what's good for the goose is good for the
gander and all that jazz..."). Thing is, in rear-enders in general,
it's not easy to tell which way it happened. Did the front vehicle
slow down too abrubtly for the back vehicle to react? Or was the
driver of the back vehicle simply not paying attention to the road?
Granted we, as drivers, have a responsibility to be aware of our
surroundings _and_ the road. This includes keeping back a safe
distance in order to have some reactive response should an accident
occur up ahead. So if my tailgator was simply not paying attention or
some such, I'd say she should be liable for at least half of the
incurred expenses and perhaps a few charges of dangerous driving. I,
of course, would get all that plus wreckless endangerment and possibly
- were a death involved and the "right" language were used - the death
penalty.
She'd be guilty, because she was driving too close to allow sufficient time
to stop. If, for example, you had braked suddenly for someone running into
the road she would have hit you because of how close she was.
I recently had someone cut in front of me. I was doing 50 in the
center of three lanes, and this jerk merged from the on ramp into the
right lane, which was OK except he just moved suddenly in front of me,
at 25 MPH for no reason because his lane was clear, I had to screech
the brakes, and I'm lucky that the tractor trailer behind me had some
distance and the driver was alert. I drive a small Mazda. This was 6
AM going to work.
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
27 Oct 2003 09:53:45 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:48:08 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
I recently had someone cut in front of me. I was doing 50 in the
center of three lanes, and this jerk merged from the on ramp into the
right lane, which was OK except he just moved suddenly in front of me,
at 25 MPH for no reason because his lane was clear, I had to screech
the brakes, and I'm lucky that the tractor trailer behind me had some
distance and the driver was alert. I drive a small Mazda. This was 6
AM going to work.
I've never seen a 2 inch high Mazda. :)
Glad you're okay, though.
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
28 Oct 2003 05:35:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:53:45 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:48:08 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
I recently had someone cut in front of me. I was doing 50 in the
center of three lanes, and this jerk merged from the on ramp into the
right lane, which was OK except he just moved suddenly in front of me,
at 25 MPH for no reason because his lane was clear, I had to screech
the brakes, and I'm lucky that the tractor trailer behind me had some
distance and the driver was alert. I drive a small Mazda. This was 6
AM going to work.
I've never seen a 2 inch high Mazda. :)
Glad you're okay, though.
Thanks. And, I think we've all seen 2" high compact cars, just unable
to determine make and model. Tragedy drunk or not. (:</
Let me throw off a little steam: just for anyone's perusal:
I don't really advocate drunk driving, but many people don't lose
their motor skills and judgement until their BAC is pretty high.
It's a gray area, simply that some can "hold their alcohol" and some
cannot, but nobody is going to agree on how/where we draw the line.
The BAC isn't a perfect judge but pretty well accepted. We could go
on, on, and on, but:
If a Black Box could exonerate me (believe me, around here people fly
in from nowhere, I've avoided as many accidents sober as non-sober,
and, one or twice, totally drunk. (not proud)), OK.
Tracking, I opt out. I'm not going anywhere illegal, why bother, if
marketing wants to know my habits, they can purchase that info from
me, it's mine and not provided free of charge.
It's a sticky subject, for there are good reasons to GET tracking eqpt
installed, and people are buying up such stuff, and it's good when
you're stuck in the desert or mountains, or to recover a stolen car.
I might get a CB if I'm going that far, and my car isn't right up
there in theft statistics.
Isn't it nice to have a choice?
How would know if you didn't? like the Renta-Car agency surcharging
their customers for speeding.
It goes on, and on, and on......Thanks for listening.
(I verbalize my road rage, rather than practice it - it works better
and stops anger rather than passing it on)
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
28 Oct 2003 09:46:23 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:35:10 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
I don't really advocate drunk driving, but many people don't lose
their motor skills and judgement until their BAC is pretty high.
But you lose reaction time (or, rather, gain it) with every cc. Even
if you regularly drink a quart a day, your reaction time goes up every
time you drink.
It's a gray area, simply that some can "hold their alcohol" and some
cannot, but nobody is going to agree on how/where we draw the line.
There's a difference between not appearing to be drunk ("holding one's
alcohol") and having a 2 second reaction time while expecting to have
a 3/4 second time.
I'm not a teetotaler, but I've called for the meat wagon for far too
many victims of people who can hold their liquor.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
29 Oct 2003 09:28:58 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:46:23 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:35:10 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
I don't really advocate drunk driving, but many people don't lose
their motor skills and judgement until their BAC is pretty high.
But you lose reaction time (or, rather, gain it) with every cc. Even
if you regularly drink a quart a day, your reaction time goes up every
time you drink.
It's a gray area, simply that some can "hold their alcohol" and some
cannot, but nobody is going to agree on how/where we draw the line.
There's a difference between not appearing to be drunk ("holding one's
alcohol") and having a 2 second reaction time while expecting to have
a 3/4 second time.
I'm not a teetotaler, but I've called for the meat wagon for far too
many victims of people who can hold their liquor.
I suppose it wouldn't take too many of those calls to make me rethink,
I know that there's a difference between talking about something and
actually doing and dealing with it.
Is your experience from the highways? I wasn't thinking about high
speed traffic, and since going a long distance requires planning,
there is always time for some sleep before the return trip. And,
highway accidents must be awful to deal with.
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
29 Oct 2003 10:01:21 PM |
|
|
<> wrote in message
news:6n01qv8ffqdm3oe8cv11bukn38eeksghr1@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:46:23 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:35:10 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
I don't really advocate drunk driving, but many people don't lose
their motor skills and judgement until their BAC is pretty high.
Please post the studies that support this.
But you lose reaction time (or, rather, gain it) with every cc. Even
if you regularly drink a quart a day, your reaction time goes up every
time you drink.
It's a gray area, simply that some can "hold their alcohol" and some
cannot, but nobody is going to agree on how/where we draw the line.
There's a difference between not appearing to be drunk ("holding one's
alcohol") and having a 2 second reaction time while expecting to have
a 3/4 second time.
I'm not a teetotaler, but I've called for the meat wagon for far too
many victims of people who can hold their liquor.
I suppose it wouldn't take too many of those calls to make me rethink,
I know that there's a difference between talking about something and
actually doing and dealing with it.
Is your experience from the highways? I wasn't thinking about high
speed traffic, and since going a long distance requires planning,
there is always time for some sleep before the return trip. And,
highway accidents must be awful to deal with.
Highways and byways. The difference is usually just the speed involved.
The smell and colors at 3:00am are about the same.
We have a turn North of here that is very gradual. The same people drive it
at high speeds all the time, but on a regular basis after a few drinks they
end up in the orchard sometimes stopped by a tree and down that damned steep
little grade that we have to carry our cutters down to and them up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
30 Oct 2003 05:13:49 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 04:01:21 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>
wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:6n01qv8ffqdm3oe8cv11bukn38eeksghr1@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:46:23 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:35:10 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
I don't really advocate drunk driving, but many people don't lose
their motor skills and judgement until their BAC is pretty high.
Please post the studies that support this.
It's not official, just my personal observation. I didn't mean to open
a bag of worms and semantics, as it can get lengthy when we bring in
factors of age, body weight, tolerance of alcohol, etc. Too many
variables to form a solid hypothesis. But at the bars I've been to,
people seem to get a few quick drinks then as it takes effect,
automatically the time between those drinks lengthens considerably.
There's lots to do, darts, pool, arcade games that require
co-ordination and motor skills. Maybe I've been living with my view
and thus biased because I haven't had to respond to ugly accidents and
see it from your view.
Not to weaken the tragedy of deaths, there are still millions of
people who drive home safely compared to relatively few accidents.
Sure, all deaths are one too many, just like our dead troops in Iraq,
but our government says it's a small price to pay for freedom. And
they aren't going to stop the war while they are in office. So, there
is an acceptable death rate in all endeavors of life.
We can wish otherwise, I often do, but we should deal and move on.
But you lose reaction time (or, rather, gain it) with every cc. Even
if you regularly drink a quart a day, your reaction time goes up every
time you drink.
It's a gray area, simply that some can "hold their alcohol" and some
cannot, but nobody is going to agree on how/where we draw the line.
There's a difference between not appearing to be drunk ("holding one's
alcohol") and having a 2 second reaction time while expecting to have
a 3/4 second time.
I'm not a teetotaler, but I've called for the meat wagon for far too
many victims of people who can hold their liquor.
I suppose it wouldn't take too many of those calls to make me rethink,
I know that there's a difference between talking about something and
actually doing and dealing with it.
Is your experience from the highways? I wasn't thinking about high
speed traffic, and since going a long distance requires planning,
there is always time for some sleep before the return trip. And,
highway accidents must be awful to deal with.
Highways and byways. The difference is usually just the speed involved.
The smell and colors at 3:00am are about the same.
We have a turn North of here that is very gradual. The same people drive it
at high speeds all the time, but on a regular basis after a few drinks they
end up in the orchard sometimes stopped by a tree and down that damned steep
little grade that we have to carry our cutters down to and them up.
I'm sure it must be difficult notifying the next of kin, presuming
you've had to do that.
I presume you've rescued people and I have tremendous respect for
people like that.
I wish that we could foolproof the world, no deaths from cars, guns,
war, etc, but we can only do our best to lower the rate.
But no matter how reasonable the majority behaves, the few dangerous
people emerge to cause their mayhem anyway.
Like 90% of our politicians make the honest 10 % look bad. Yes it's a
joke but could be just an overstatement of the truth. {:>)
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
30 Oct 2003 07:03:08 PM |
|
|
<> wrote in message
news:3r43qvcebcbdaecsncvucinhlv0dvhiind@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 04:01:21 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>
wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:6n01qv8ffqdm3oe8cv11bukn38eeksghr1@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:46:23 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:35:10 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
I don't really advocate drunk driving, but many people don't lose
their motor skills and judgement until their BAC is pretty high.
Please post the studies that support this.
It's not official, just my personal observation. I didn't mean to open
a bag of worms and semantics, as it can get lengthy when we bring in
factors of age, body weight, tolerance of alcohol, etc. Too many
variables to form a solid hypothesis. But at the bars I've been to,
people seem to get a few quick drinks then as it takes effect,
automatically the time between those drinks lengthens considerably.
There's lots to do, darts, pool, arcade games that require
co-ordination and motor skills. Maybe I've been living with my view
and thus biased because I haven't had to respond to ugly accidents and
see it from your view.
No studies support this. All studies I've ever seen show that reaction time
and motor skills go down after the first drink.
It's only been the last few years that drunk driving, a major source of
death both in traffic and on the water has been taken seriously.
This myth that some people can handle their alcohol kills.
(The stats say more than 50% of all adult drownings involve alcohol,
personally I've never recovered a normal adult who was not drinking when he
or she drowned.)
Not to weaken the tragedy of deaths, there are still millions of
people who drive home safely compared to relatively few accidents.
Sure, all deaths are one too many, just like our dead troops in Iraq,
but our government says it's a small price to pay for freedom. And
they aren't going to stop the war while they are in office. So, there
is an acceptable death rate in all endeavors of life.
This is the same government that said we were there to get those WMD's ands
which has takne away more of our freedom since 9/11 than we ever lost from
some "evil empire".
We can wish otherwise, I often do, but we should deal and move on.
So because only a few hundred thousand are seriously injured or killed each
year we should just ignore it.
Good call.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
30 Oct 2003 09:20:09 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 01:03:08 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>
wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:3r43qvcebcbdaecsncvucinhlv0dvhiind@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 04:01:21 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>
wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:6n01qv8ffqdm3oe8cv11bukn38eeksghr1@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:46:23 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:35:10 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
I don't really advocate drunk driving, but many people don't lose
their motor skills and judgement until their BAC is pretty high.
Please post the studies that support this.
It's not official, just my personal observation. I didn't mean to open
a bag of worms and semantics, as it can get lengthy when we bring in
factors of age, body weight, tolerance of alcohol, etc. Too many
variables to form a solid hypothesis. But at the bars I've been to,
people seem to get a few quick drinks then as it takes effect,
automatically the time between those drinks lengthens considerably.
There's lots to do, darts, pool, arcade games that require
co-ordination and motor skills. Maybe I've been living with my view
and thus biased because I haven't had to respond to ugly accidents and
see it from your view.
No studies support this. All studies I've ever seen show that reaction time
and motor skills go down after the first drink.
It's only been the last few years that drunk driving, a major source of
death both in traffic and on the water has been taken seriously.
This myth that some people can handle their alcohol kills.
(The stats say more than 50% of all adult drownings involve alcohol,
personally I've never recovered a normal adult who was not drinking when he
or she drowned.)
Not to weaken the tragedy of deaths, there are still millions of
people who drive home safely compared to relatively few accidents.
Sure, all deaths are one too many, just like our dead troops in Iraq,
but our government says it's a small price to pay for freedom. And
they aren't going to stop the war while they are in office. So, there
is an acceptable death rate in all endeavors of life.
This is the same government that said we were there to get those WMD's ands
which has takne away more of our freedom since 9/11 than we ever lost from
some "evil empire".
We can wish otherwise, I often do, but we should deal and move on.
So because only a few hundred thousand are seriously injured or killed each
year we should just ignore it.
Good call.
No, not ignore it. I don't seem to be communicating well in this
thread.
Let's see, where were we..... OH yes, the Black Box.
Yep, if it could properly place fault, or give any other info that
could further our knowledge of accidents, drunk or not, such as to
enable us to reduce traffic (or any) deaths, I'm for it.
I think I got into trouble trying to express my hope that it could
avoid tarring every drinker with the same brush: automatically
assuming the drinker was at fault.
But I also wanted to mention my hope that such devices wouldn't be
used for tracking.
Yes, this government has been chipping away at our privacy and rights
in the name of 9/11/2001. Your comment leads me to think we are in a
similar ball park, there. Patriot act, sneak&peek, wiretapping, etc.
It's perspective that I keep failing to get across: errors are
inevitable, dangerous people do exist and cause damage, but we can't
weed them out beforehand in this free country. Other nations have
tried similar things, like "social cleansing" "racial purging" or by
whatever name, killing off dissenters or different "types" of people,
just like in the bibble, and our gov't is quick to drop bombs on them.
So, we can't just screen and eliminate certain people that don't fit
the plan. We have to treat each case based on the facts of the case
and if a data recorder could prevent false assumptions from pre
judging the case, OK.
Whether it's the drunk or the sober that was at fault, let's not make
any blanket assumptions, please. Let's be sure we are dealing with the
actual fault.
Please let me just slip this opinion in here:
As far as "dealing and moving on" - I think too many people DWELL on
9/11/2001. Don't misunderstand, I'm not brushing that off. It is a
tragedy of great proportion. Don't worry, we won't forget, and we
don't need constant churning to remember.
But festering hate over it is not building strength to overcome the
cause. It is not leading to effective solutions.
Instead, by dwelling on the attacks, we have fallen victim of hate and
divisiveness, and we in danger of losing our self control, which would
be exactly what the terrorists would want. Or right up there.
Again, a situation that calls for facts and proper placement of blame
rather than all the emotional ***** printed, spun and distributed
about it.
Unfortunately, the true facts about that aren't coming, and our
enemies are playing our collective emotions like a full symphony
orchestra.
Yeah, I really covered more than the given topic, the Black Box, but
it was fun, even if awkward.
And lo, the worm turns. I don't know why.
drift
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
27 Oct 2003 09:52:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 03:25:25 GMT, (Bill, The
Avender) posted in alt.atheism:
gander and all that jazz..."). Thing is, in rear-enders in general,
it's not easy to tell which way it happened. Did the front vehicle
slow down too abrubtly for the back vehicle to react?
Only if the read vehicle was tail gating, which would make them at
least partly responsible.
So if my tailgator was simply not paying attention or
some such, I'd say she should be liable for at least half of the
incurred expenses and perhaps a few charges of dangerous driving.
In New York, at least, you have the legal right to assume that all
other drivers are driving legally. That would include not checking
how closely you're being followed, since you have the right to assume
that the driver following you is doing so at a safe distance, and is
paying attention to not only what you're doing, but what the traffic
in front of you is doing. (Which is why a compact car has to hang way
back when following an SUV - no vision to the front of the SUV.)
I, of course, would get all that plus wreckless endangerment and possibly
- were a death involved and the "right" language were used - the death
penalty.
That would depend on circumstances and the state. If you hit the
brakes to cause the other driver to hit you, maybe. If you hit the
brakes to avoid hitting, say, a Canada Goose (they're protected), or
even a dog, you weren't violating the law. (And you can always
conjure up a dog that the following driver wasn't in a position to
see.)
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
26 Oct 2003 06:50:36 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:00:35 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:26:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:18:19 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
As an example, if it could prove that a sober driver was at fault when
the other driver was drunk, I'd be glad. That could save us from the
condescending assumption that alcohol caused the accident. Actually,
they say alcohol causes about 40%, so the majority goes to the sober
60% of drivers. So you are 20% better off driving drunk.
Now there's a classic case of innumeracy.
I think the quote was from comedian Steven Wright, gotta give credit
where it's due: but aint it the truth?
What happens if someone drinks six beers, drives and collides with
someone who had five beers because they were both puzzled at the
idiotic moves some sober driver is making?
Completely passed you by, eh?
The fact that alcohol causes 40% of accidents (assuming the accuracy
of the number) doesn't mean that sober drivers have more chance of
having an accident than drunk ones.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
&
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
27 Oct 2003 04:39:39 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:50:36 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:00:35 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:26:51 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 12:18:19 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
As an example, if it could prove that a sober driver was at fault when
the other driver was drunk, I'd be glad. That could save us from the
condescending assumption that alcohol caused the accident. Actually,
they say alcohol causes about 40%, so the majority goes to the sober
60% of drivers. So you are 20% better off driving drunk.
Now there's a classic case of innumeracy.
I think the quote was from comedian Steven Wright, gotta give credit
where it's due: but aint it the truth?
What happens if someone drinks six beers, drives and collides with
someone who had five beers because they were both puzzled at the
idiotic moves some sober driver is making?
Completely passed you by, eh?
The fact that alcohol causes 40% of accidents (assuming the accuracy
of the number) doesn't mean that sober drivers have more chance of
having an accident than drunk ones.
OK. Take the alcohol out, make it 100% sober and you have the same
overall accident rate? The ex-drunks wouldn't be any better than the
sobers, would they?
How about hangovers? I bet they are behind most road rage.
It was a joke but I like thinking with the opposite polarity about
some things: like statistics. How come we never hear how many people
make it home safely from the bar?
Just making the case for responsible drinkers.
If you don't like alcohol, don't drink any.
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: "Auto "black box" convicts driver of dangerous driving causing death" (Found in alt.true.crime) |
27 Oct 2003 09:58:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:39:39 -0500, posted in
alt.atheism:
How about hangovers? I bet they are behind most road rage.
Not in my experience. Type-A personality is. I've never seen a
submissive person exhibit road rage. That doesn't mean that it's
impossible, but in all my years on the highways I've never seen it.
It was a joke but I like thinking with the opposite polarity about
some things: like statistics. How come we never hear how many people
make it home safely from the bar?
Just making the case for responsible drinkers.
Anyone who drives after drinking isn't responsible.
If you don't like alcohol, don't drink any.
Leaving my current situation aside (diabetics who drink are fools), I
used to have at least a pint of beer with dinner, almost every night,
Monday to Friday. In the event of an emergency my wife could drive.
On weekends I usually drove and she could have a drink with dinner if
she wanted. But I wouldn't drive unless there was at least 8 hours of
sleep between alcohol and the car.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
