| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"the_dawggie" |
| Date: |
09 Jan 2008 04:12:54 AM |
| Object: |
Drink driving |
I watched a "COPS" show here, no state in the
USA is allowed to have an open container of
Alcohol in the vehicle.
I can, and have driven home with me stubby
in the cup holder.
Mind you, there is a limit. PoliceCo will give
you 15 minutes to show you are under of over,
that one works both ways when you think about
it.
Just kinda thinking the USA stuff is weird. Jump
on one leg, walk a straight line, maybe has is merits.
.
|
|
| User: "Bacon" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
10 Jan 2008 08:12:30 AM |
|
|
On Jan 9, 4:12=A0am, the_dawggie <the_dawg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I watched a "COPS" show here, no state in the
USA is allowed to have an open container of
Alcohol in the vehicle.
Not entirely accurate. Missouri has No state-wide Open Containers
law, drinking while driving is not illegal. In Louisiana you can buy
a 60 ounce Hurricane at drive through bars, they have a frozen
beverage exception to their open container laws but it must have a lid
and cannot have a straw. In Alaska you can drink on a motorized
scooter as long as it's engine displacement is less than 50 cc's.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 04:54:28 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
the_dawggie wrote:
I watched a "COPS" show here, no state in the
USA is allowed to have an open container of
Alcohol in the vehicle.
I can, and have driven home with me stubby
in the cup holder.
Mind you, there is a limit. PoliceCo will give
you 15 minutes to show you are under of over,
that one works both ways when you think about
it.
Just kinda thinking the USA stuff is weird. Jump
on one leg, walk a straight line, maybe has is merits.
Yeah, we're so weird. Like, duh.
http://www.news10.net/video/player_news10.aspx?aid=50014&bw=
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_dawggie" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 05:21:54 AM |
|
|
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
the_dawggie wrote:
I watched a "COPS" show here, no state in the
USA is allowed to have an open container of
Alcohol in the vehicle.
I can, and have driven home with me stubby
in the cup holder.
Mind you, there is a limit. PoliceCo will give
you 15 minutes to show you are under of over,
that one works both ways when you think about
it.
Just kinda thinking the USA stuff is weird. Jump
on one leg, walk a straight line, maybe has is merits.
Yeah, we're so weird. Like, duh.
http://www.news10.net/video/player_news10.aspx?aid=50014&bw=
Urk, I have a ToyCo truck like that, but the real deal 4x4
long bed turbo diesel, not a Tacoma.
It all happens, I guess.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 05:31:17 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 02:54:28 -0800, Janithor <JanithorHAW@comcast.net>
wrote:
the_dawggie wrote:
I watched a "COPS" show here, no state in the
USA is allowed to have an open container of
Alcohol in the vehicle.
I can, and have driven home with me stubby
in the cup holder.
Mind you, there is a limit. PoliceCo will give
you 15 minutes to show you are under of over,
that one works both ways when you think about
it.
Just kinda thinking the USA stuff is weird. Jump
on one leg, walk a straight line, maybe has is merits.
Yeah, we're so weird. Like, duh.
http://www.news10.net/video/player_news10.aspx?aid=50014&bw=
That story is obviously fake. There is no way that could have happened
since drunk driving is against the law.
--
We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the
complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is
not true.
- Robert Wilensky
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 06:09:54 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 02:54:28 -0800, Janithor <JanithorHAW@comcast.net>
wrote:
the_dawggie wrote:
I watched a "COPS" show here, no state in the
USA is allowed to have an open container of
Alcohol in the vehicle.
I can, and have driven home with me stubby
in the cup holder.
Mind you, there is a limit. PoliceCo will give
you 15 minutes to show you are under of over,
that one works both ways when you think about
it.
Just kinda thinking the USA stuff is weird. Jump
on one leg, walk a straight line, maybe has is merits.
Yeah, we're so weird. Like, duh.
http://www.news10.net/video/player_news10.aspx?aid=50014&bw=
That story is obviously fake. There is no way that could have happened
since drunk driving is against the law.
Therefore, any law that does not have 100% compliance rate is
illegitimate, since, even though it is a law, some people will still
break it. Surely you can do better than this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 09:44:53 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:09:54 -0800, Janithor <JanithorHAW@comcast.net>
wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
That story is obviously fake. There is no way that could have happened
since drunk driving is against the law.
Therefore, any law that does not have 100% compliance rate is
illegitimate, since, even though it is a law, some people will still
break it. Surely you can do better than this?
Just pointing out that the law doesn't prevent tragedy. *People* prevent
tragedies.
--
No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on
your side that you wish were on the other.
- Jascha Heifetz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 03:35:19 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:09:54 -0800, Janithor <JanithorHAW@comcast.net>
wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
That story is obviously fake. There is no way that could have happened
since drunk driving is against the law.
Therefore, any law that does not have 100% compliance rate is
illegitimate, since, even though it is a law, some people will still
break it. Surely you can do better than this?
Just pointing out that the law doesn't prevent tragedy. *People* prevent
tragedies.
Right, people prevent them in part with laws. IIRC, drunk driving
deaths have been cut in half since the 70's, while at the same time our
population has grown significantly. You think it should be legal for
people to pound some brewskies while driving? I'm sure you can do it
without consequence of course, but you're putting a lot of faith in your
fellow bipedal monkeys. I don't have that kind faith, therefore, if
they drink while driving I want them to sit in a jail cell for a while
until they get the point that that's a fucking stupid thing to do and
puts my life at risk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 03:48:28 PM |
|
|
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:09:54 -0800, Janithor
<JanithorHAW@comcast.net> wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
That story is obviously fake. There is no way that could have
happened since drunk driving is against the law.
Therefore, any law that does not have 100% compliance rate is
illegitimate, since, even though it is a law, some people will still
break it. Surely you can do better than this?
Just pointing out that the law doesn't prevent tragedy. *People*
prevent tragedies.
Right, people prevent them in part with laws. IIRC, drunk driving
deaths have been cut in half since the 70's, while at the same time
our population has grown significantly. You think it should be legal
for people to pound some brewskies while driving? I'm sure you can
do it without consequence of course, but you're putting a lot of
faith in your fellow bipedal monkeys. I don't have that kind faith,
therefore, if they drink while driving I want them to sit in a jail
cell for a while until they get the point that that's a fucking
stupid thing to do and puts my life at risk.
quit getting drunk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 03:58:20 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
% wrote:
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:09:54 -0800, Janithor
<JanithorHAW@comcast.net> wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
That story is obviously fake. There is no way that could have
happened since drunk driving is against the law.
Therefore, any law that does not have 100% compliance rate is
illegitimate, since, even though it is a law, some people will still
break it. Surely you can do better than this?
Just pointing out that the law doesn't prevent tragedy. *People*
prevent tragedies.
Right, people prevent them in part with laws. IIRC, drunk driving
deaths have been cut in half since the 70's, while at the same time
our population has grown significantly. You think it should be legal
for people to pound some brewskies while driving? I'm sure you can
do it without consequence of course, but you're putting a lot of
faith in your fellow bipedal monkeys. I don't have that kind faith,
therefore, if they drink while driving I want them to sit in a jail
cell for a while until they get the point that that's a fucking
stupid thing to do and puts my life at risk.
quit getting drunk
<reply via email>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "the_dawggie" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 04:13:35 PM |
|
|
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:09:54 -0800, Janithor <JanithorHAW@comcast.net>
wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
That story is obviously fake. There is no way that could have happened
since drunk driving is against the law.
Therefore, any law that does not have 100% compliance rate is
illegitimate, since, even though it is a law, some people will still
break it. Surely you can do better than this?
Just pointing out that the law doesn't prevent tragedy. *People* prevent
tragedies.
Right, people prevent them in part with laws. IIRC, drunk driving
deaths have been cut in half since the 70's, while at the same time our
population has grown significantly. You think it should be legal for
people to pound some brewskies while driving? I'm sure you can do it
without consequence of course, but you're putting a lot of faith in your
fellow bipedal monkeys. I don't have that kind faith, therefore, if
they drink while driving I want them to sit in a jail cell for a while
until they get the point that that's a fucking stupid thing to do and
puts my life at risk.
It's common here for people to drink and drive, there is nothing wrong
with that. Being over 0.05, that is a problem. You get your arse kicked
for that. The police here give you every possible chance to sober up,
including the 15 minute cooling off period, as well as whatever time
it takes for them to take you to the station to do the uber accurate
test that will be presented in court. As I mentioned these delays are
intentional and serve to tell if you are on the rise or fall of BAC from
the initial reading. If on the rise your license is toast, and your
wallet made empty. If on the fall to the point the final test is below
or close to, you get a stern warning from a magistrate that if you
do it again, your licence is toast.
It just seemed odd to me that an open can of beer in the cup holder
would be any different than a cup of coffee, or softdrink. BAC is the
real deal here, and that is what is being checked.
Here though, police are very harsh on cell 'phone use while driving.
Seat belts too, speeding. During holiday periods lose half your
license for either not wearing seat belt or speeding (go 45 kph over
the limit - you won't be driving again for a very long while).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 05:07:53 PM |
|
|
"the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jGbhj.1235$421.324@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:09:54 -0800, Janithor <JanithorHAW@comcast.net>
wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
That story is obviously fake. There is no way that could have happened
since drunk driving is against the law.
Therefore, any law that does not have 100% compliance rate is
illegitimate, since, even though it is a law, some people will still
break it. Surely you can do better than this?
Just pointing out that the law doesn't prevent tragedy. *People* prevent
tragedies.
Right, people prevent them in part with laws. IIRC, drunk driving deaths
have been cut in half since the 70's, while at the same time our
population has grown significantly. You think it should be legal for
people to pound some brewskies while driving? I'm sure you can do it
without consequence of course, but you're putting a lot of faith in your
fellow bipedal monkeys. I don't have that kind faith, therefore, if they
drink while driving I want them to sit in a jail cell for a while until
they get the point that that's a fucking stupid thing to do and puts my
life at risk.
It's common here for people to drink and drive, there is nothing wrong
with that. Being over 0.05, that is a problem. You get your arse kicked
for that. The police here give you every possible chance to sober up,
including the 15 minute cooling off period, as well as whatever time
it takes for them to take you to the station to do the uber accurate
test that will be presented in court. As I mentioned these delays are
intentional and serve to tell if you are on the rise or fall of BAC from
the initial reading. If on the rise your license is toast, and your
wallet made empty. If on the fall to the point the final test is below
or close to, you get a stern warning from a magistrate that if you
do it again, your licence is toast.
It just seemed odd to me that an open can of beer in the cup holder
would be any different than a cup of coffee, or softdrink. BAC is the
real deal here, and that is what is being checked.
Here though, police are very harsh on cell 'phone use while driving.
Seat belts too, speeding. During holiday periods lose half your
license for either not wearing seat belt or speeding (go 45 kph over
the limit - you won't be driving again for a very long while).
You have got to be kidding me.
--
Rhi
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_dawggie" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
10 Jan 2008 01:23:42 AM |
|
|
Rhiannon wrote:
"the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jGbhj.1235$421.324@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:09:54 -0800, Janithor <JanithorHAW@comcast.net>
wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
That story is obviously fake. There is no way that could have happened
since drunk driving is against the law.
Therefore, any law that does not have 100% compliance rate is
illegitimate, since, even though it is a law, some people will still
break it. Surely you can do better than this?
Just pointing out that the law doesn't prevent tragedy. *People* prevent
tragedies.
Right, people prevent them in part with laws. IIRC, drunk driving deaths
have been cut in half since the 70's, while at the same time our
population has grown significantly. You think it should be legal for
people to pound some brewskies while driving? I'm sure you can do it
without consequence of course, but you're putting a lot of faith in your
fellow bipedal monkeys. I don't have that kind faith, therefore, if they
drink while driving I want them to sit in a jail cell for a while until
they get the point that that's a fucking stupid thing to do and puts my
life at risk.
It's common here for people to drink and drive, there is nothing wrong
with that. Being over 0.05, that is a problem. You get your arse kicked
for that. The police here give you every possible chance to sober up,
including the 15 minute cooling off period, as well as whatever time
it takes for them to take you to the station to do the uber accurate
test that will be presented in court. As I mentioned these delays are
intentional and serve to tell if you are on the rise or fall of BAC from
the initial reading. If on the rise your license is toast, and your
wallet made empty. If on the fall to the point the final test is below
or close to, you get a stern warning from a magistrate that if you
do it again, your licence is toast.
It just seemed odd to me that an open can of beer in the cup holder
would be any different than a cup of coffee, or softdrink. BAC is the
real deal here, and that is what is being checked.
Here though, police are very harsh on cell 'phone use while driving.
Seat belts too, speeding. During holiday periods lose half your
license for either not wearing seat belt or speeding (go 45 kph over
the limit - you won't be driving again for a very long while).
You have got to be kidding me.
Nup, it's all here:
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/index.html
Nothing in there to say you can't drive naked, or whatever
footware you want, or open container of alcohol, or metho
if you are an Abo (sorry that's a bit racist).
That said, provisional/learner drivers must be 0% BAC,
there are even warnings that they should not even use
mouthwash in the morning as it has a content similar to
port. The first time teen drivers have a hard time of it
here (CH might in the UK too this year, however not aware
of UK regs).
I've asked a HWP officer in the past. No problem with it.
They concentrate on what your personal Blood Alcohol
Content is as driver, that is all that is important.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ivan Marsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 04:35:14 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:13:35 +0000, the_dawggie wrote:
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:09:54 -0800, Janithor <JanithorHAW@comcast.net>
wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
That story is obviously fake. There is no way that could have
happened since drunk driving is against the law.
Therefore, any law that does not have 100% compliance rate is
illegitimate, since, even though it is a law, some people will still
break it. Surely you can do better than this?
Just pointing out that the law doesn't prevent tragedy. *People*
prevent tragedies.
Right, people prevent them in part with laws. IIRC, drunk driving
deaths have been cut in half since the 70's, while at the same time our
population has grown significantly. You think it should be legal for
people to pound some brewskies while driving? I'm sure you can do it
without consequence of course, but you're putting a lot of faith in
your fellow bipedal monkeys. I don't have that kind faith, therefore,
if they drink while driving I want them to sit in a jail cell for a
while until they get the point that that's a fucking stupid thing to do
and puts my life at risk.
It's common here for people to drink and drive, there is nothing wrong
with that. Being over 0.05, that is a problem. You get your arse kicked
for that. The police here give you every possible chance to sober up,
including the 15 minute cooling off period, as well as whatever time it
takes for them to take you to the station to do the uber accurate test
that will be presented in court. As I mentioned these delays are
intentional and serve to tell if you are on the rise or fall of BAC from
the initial reading. If on the rise your license is toast, and your
wallet made empty. If on the fall to the point the final test is below
or close to, you get a stern warning from a magistrate that if you do it
again, your licence is toast.
Wow... that's almost reasonable.
Here you can be arrested and thrown in jail for anything over .04 at the
officers discretion. If you're in an accident with any amount of alcohol
in your system, you're toast. Any detectable level of weed in your
system and you're toast accident or not... even if you smoked it a month
ago and there's no evidence of impairment.
..08 is NOT the legal limit in the U.S. .08 is the level at which they need
no other evidence or opinion to prove guilt.
Here though, police are very harsh on cell 'phone use while driving.
Good. Talking on the phone is much more dangerous than a couple of
cocktails.
--
I told you this was going to happen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "used2be" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 04:48:25 PM |
|
|
"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.01.09.22.35.13.907677@you.now...
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:13:35 +0000, the_dawggie wrote:
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:09:54 -0800, Janithor <JanithorHAW@comcast.net>
wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
That story is obviously fake. There is no way that could have
happened since drunk driving is against the law.
Therefore, any law that does not have 100% compliance rate is
illegitimate, since, even though it is a law, some people will still
break it. Surely you can do better than this?
Just pointing out that the law doesn't prevent tragedy. *People*
prevent tragedies.
Right, people prevent them in part with laws. IIRC, drunk driving
deaths have been cut in half since the 70's, while at the same time our
population has grown significantly. You think it should be legal for
people to pound some brewskies while driving? I'm sure you can do it
without consequence of course, but you're putting a lot of faith in
your fellow bipedal monkeys. I don't have that kind faith, therefore,
if they drink while driving I want them to sit in a jail cell for a
while until they get the point that that's a fucking stupid thing to do
and puts my life at risk.
It's common here for people to drink and drive, there is nothing wrong
with that. Being over 0.05, that is a problem. You get your arse kicked
for that. The police here give you every possible chance to sober up,
including the 15 minute cooling off period, as well as whatever time it
takes for them to take you to the station to do the uber accurate test
that will be presented in court. As I mentioned these delays are
intentional and serve to tell if you are on the rise or fall of BAC from
the initial reading. If on the rise your license is toast, and your
wallet made empty. If on the fall to the point the final test is below
or close to, you get a stern warning from a magistrate that if you do it
again, your licence is toast.
Wow... that's almost reasonable.
Here you can be arrested and thrown in jail for anything over .04 at the
officers discretion. If you're in an accident with any amount of alcohol
in your system, you're toast. Any detectable level of weed in your
system and you're toast accident or not... even if you smoked it a month
ago and there's no evidence of impairment.
.08 is NOT the legal limit in the U.S. .08 is the level at which they need
no other evidence or opinion to prove guilt.
Here though, police are very harsh on cell 'phone use while driving.
Good. Talking on the phone is much more dangerous than a couple of
cocktails.
yes, and thank goodness they're so strict on the non seat belt users. those
people should be HANGED i tell ya!
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
10 Jan 2008 07:21:35 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:48:25 -0600, "used2be" <used2be@nowhere.com> wrote:
yes, and thank goodness they're so strict on the non seat belt users. those
people should be HANGED i tell ya!
Yeah! People who don't wear seatbelts are such a risk to others. ;)
They should pass a law to force us to brush our teeth three times a day
also! Losing your teeth may mean that public funds will someday be used to
pay for dentures. Poor dental hygiene also raises the risk of heart
disease. That costs society money.
Personally I think it would be best if I just never got out of bed. The
government can do a far better job of living my life for me.
--
There are two tragedies in life. One is not to get your heart's desire. The
other is to get it.
- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 04:50:24 PM |
|
|
used2be wrote:
"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.01.09.22.35.13.907677@you.now...
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:13:35 +0000, the_dawggie wrote:
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:09:54 -0800, Janithor
<JanithorHAW@comcast.net> wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
That story is obviously fake. There is no way that could have
happened since drunk driving is against the law.
Therefore, any law that does not have 100% compliance rate is
illegitimate, since, even though it is a law, some people will
still break it. Surely you can do better than this?
Just pointing out that the law doesn't prevent tragedy. *People*
prevent tragedies.
Right, people prevent them in part with laws. IIRC, drunk driving
deaths have been cut in half since the 70's, while at the same
time our population has grown significantly. You think it should
be legal for people to pound some brewskies while driving? I'm
sure you can do it without consequence of course, but you're
putting a lot of faith in your fellow bipedal monkeys. I don't
have that kind faith, therefore, if they drink while driving I
want them to sit in a jail cell for a while until they get the
point that that's a fucking stupid thing to do and puts my life at
risk.
It's common here for people to drink and drive, there is nothing
wrong with that. Being over 0.05, that is a problem. You get your
arse kicked for that. The police here give you every possible
chance to sober up, including the 15 minute cooling off period, as
well as whatever time it takes for them to take you to the station
to do the uber accurate test that will be presented in court. As I
mentioned these delays are intentional and serve to tell if you are
on the rise or fall of BAC from the initial reading. If on the rise
your license is toast, and your wallet made empty. If on the fall
to the point the final test is below or close to, you get a stern
warning from a magistrate that if you do it again, your licence is
toast.
Wow... that's almost reasonable.
Here you can be arrested and thrown in jail for anything over .04 at
the officers discretion. If you're in an accident with any amount of
alcohol in your system, you're toast. Any detectable level of weed
in your
system and you're toast accident or not... even if you smoked it a
month ago and there's no evidence of impairment.
.08 is NOT the legal limit in the U.S. .08 is the level at which
they need no other evidence or opinion to prove guilt.
Here though, police are very harsh on cell 'phone use while driving.
Good. Talking on the phone is much more dangerous than a couple of
cocktails.
yes, and thank goodness they're so strict on the non seat belt users.
those people should be HANGED i tell ya!
i gave up driving so i can drink
.
|
|
|
| User: "used2be" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 05:00:21 PM |
|
|
"%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:VoqdnVDi6rnZzRjanZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@giganews.com...
used2be wrote:
"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.01.09.22.35.13.907677@you.now...
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:13:35 +0000, the_dawggie wrote:
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:09:54 -0800, Janithor
<JanithorHAW@comcast.net> wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
That story is obviously fake. There is no way that could have
happened since drunk driving is against the law.
Therefore, any law that does not have 100% compliance rate is
illegitimate, since, even though it is a law, some people will
still break it. Surely you can do better than this?
Just pointing out that the law doesn't prevent tragedy. *People*
prevent tragedies.
Right, people prevent them in part with laws. IIRC, drunk driving
deaths have been cut in half since the 70's, while at the same
time our population has grown significantly. You think it should
be legal for people to pound some brewskies while driving? I'm
sure you can do it without consequence of course, but you're
putting a lot of faith in your fellow bipedal monkeys. I don't
have that kind faith, therefore, if they drink while driving I
want them to sit in a jail cell for a while until they get the
point that that's a fucking stupid thing to do and puts my life at
risk.
It's common here for people to drink and drive, there is nothing
wrong with that. Being over 0.05, that is a problem. You get your
arse kicked for that. The police here give you every possible
chance to sober up, including the 15 minute cooling off period, as
well as whatever time it takes for them to take you to the station
to do the uber accurate test that will be presented in court. As I
mentioned these delays are intentional and serve to tell if you are
on the rise or fall of BAC from the initial reading. If on the rise
your license is toast, and your wallet made empty. If on the fall
to the point the final test is below or close to, you get a stern
warning from a magistrate that if you do it again, your licence is
toast.
Wow... that's almost reasonable.
Here you can be arrested and thrown in jail for anything over .04 at
the officers discretion. If you're in an accident with any amount of
alcohol in your system, you're toast. Any detectable level of weed
in your
system and you're toast accident or not... even if you smoked it a
month ago and there's no evidence of impairment.
.08 is NOT the legal limit in the U.S. .08 is the level at which
they need no other evidence or opinion to prove guilt.
Here though, police are very harsh on cell 'phone use while driving.
Good. Talking on the phone is much more dangerous than a couple of
cocktails.
yes, and thank goodness they're so strict on the non seat belt users.
those people should be HANGED i tell ya!
i gave up driving so i can drink
i'm thinking of giving it up because the seat belt told me to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
09 Jan 2008 05:02:45 PM |
|
|
used2be wrote:
"%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:VoqdnVDi6rnZzRjanZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@giganews.com...
used2be wrote:
"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.01.09.22.35.13.907677@you.now...
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:13:35 +0000, the_dawggie wrote:
Janithor wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:09:54 -0800, Janithor
<JanithorHAW@comcast.net> wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
That story is obviously fake. There is no way that could have
happened since drunk driving is against the law.
Therefore, any law that does not have 100% compliance rate is
illegitimate, since, even though it is a law, some people will
still break it. Surely you can do better than this?
Just pointing out that the law doesn't prevent tragedy. *People*
prevent tragedies.
Right, people prevent them in part with laws. IIRC, drunk
driving deaths have been cut in half since the 70's, while at
the same time our population has grown significantly. You think
it should be legal for people to pound some brewskies while
driving? I'm sure you can do it without consequence of course,
but you're putting a lot of faith in your fellow bipedal
monkeys. I don't have that kind faith, therefore, if they drink
while driving I want them to sit in a jail cell for a while
until they get the point that that's a fucking stupid thing to
do and puts my life at risk.
It's common here for people to drink and drive, there is nothing
wrong with that. Being over 0.05, that is a problem. You get your
arse kicked for that. The police here give you every possible
chance to sober up, including the 15 minute cooling off period, as
well as whatever time it takes for them to take you to the station
to do the uber accurate test that will be presented in court. As I
mentioned these delays are intentional and serve to tell if you
are on the rise or fall of BAC from the initial reading. If on
the rise your license is toast, and your wallet made empty. If on
the fall to the point the final test is below or close to, you
get a stern warning from a magistrate that if you do it again,
your licence is toast.
Wow... that's almost reasonable.
Here you can be arrested and thrown in jail for anything over .04
at the officers discretion. If you're in an accident with any
amount of alcohol in your system, you're toast. Any detectable
level of weed in your
system and you're toast accident or not... even if you smoked it a
month ago and there's no evidence of impairment.
.08 is NOT the legal limit in the U.S. .08 is the level at which
they need no other evidence or opinion to prove guilt.
Here though, police are very harsh on cell 'phone use while
driving.
Good. Talking on the phone is much more dangerous than a couple of
cocktails.
yes, and thank goodness they're so strict on the non seat belt
users. those people should be HANGED i tell ya!
i gave up driving so i can drink
i'm thinking of giving it up because the seat belt told me to.
i still always pull my chair over to the side of the room ,
before i use the telephone
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
10 Jan 2008 07:16:37 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:35:14 -0600, Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
Good. Talking on the phone is much more dangerous than a couple of
cocktails.
So is driving while over-tired, which much of America does every morning.
The problem with laws about cell phone use is that they have found that
people are equally impaired by talking to another occupant of the vehicle.
So yakking away was killing people long before cell phones existed.
Contrary to the modern cliche of being a multi-tasker, the human brain can
only give full attention to one thing at a time. Anything else is being
done half-assed. It can work only if one of the tasks is instinctual, such
as playing a musical instrument while singing, or singing while dancing.
But then the only obstacles that musicians risk running into are broken
strings or a band mate hitting a bad chord. No one is going to die. The
physical act of driving can be instinctual, but the avoidance of unforeseen
obstacles can never be. That is why people may swerve to avoid an animal in
the road without realizing that there is a truck coming at them in the
other lane.
I used to have a boss who was always riding me on job evaluations for being
a "single task" individual. That is because I would start and finish a
project, having done it well. He started projects, didn't finish them all,
and did only a passable job on the ones he did. Unfortunately, half-assed
work is more cost-effective in America. Even when it ends up costing more
down the road, which it almost always does.
--
The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego
ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the
pleasures of others.
- Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ivan Marsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
10 Jan 2008 09:47:10 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:16:37 +0000, CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:35:14 -0600, Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
Good. Talking on the phone is much more dangerous than a couple of
cocktails.
So is driving while over-tired, which much of America does every
morning.
A friend of mine just put his car right into the back of another car while
driving down hwy 12... one second he was awake and driving, the next he
was in the middle of the intersection wondering why his air-bag was in his
face... no recollection of the crash, no feeling of drowsiness... just
turned off like a light switch behind the wheel. Luckily everyone turned
out okay despite both cars being totaled. Sleep deprivation is a scary
thing... and I'm driving around half asleep most of the time.
The problem with laws about cell phone use is that they have found that
people are equally impaired by talking to another occupant of the
vehicle. So yakking away was killing people long before cell phones
existed.
I've seen three different people in the last month stop at an intersection
at a green light or where they weren't required to stop at all yakking
away on the phone.
Driverless cars are starting to sound a lot less stupid than they used to.
--
I told you this was going to happen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
10 Jan 2008 09:47:50 AM |
|
|
Ivan Marsh wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:16:37 +0000, CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:35:14 -0600, Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now>
wrote:
Good. Talking on the phone is much more dangerous than a couple of
cocktails.
So is driving while over-tired, which much of America does every
morning.
A friend of mine just put his car right into the back of another car
while driving down hwy 12... one second he was awake and driving, the
next he was in the middle of the intersection wondering why his
air-bag was in his face... no recollection of the crash, no feeling
of drowsiness... just turned off like a light switch behind the
wheel. Luckily everyone turned out okay despite both cars being
totaled. Sleep deprivation is a scary thing... and I'm driving around
half asleep most of the time.
The problem with laws about cell phone use is that they have found
that people are equally impaired by talking to another occupant of
the vehicle. So yakking away was killing people long before cell
phones existed.
I've seen three different people in the last month stop at an
intersection at a green light or where they weren't required to stop
at all yakking away on the phone.
Driverless cars are starting to sound a lot less stupid than they
used to.
yes , then everyone can stay home and talk on the phone ,
while the car gets to go where ever it likes
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cal" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
11 Jan 2008 09:02:26 AM |
|
|
On 1/10/08 10:47 AM, in article pan.2008.01.10.15.47.10.171453@you.now,
"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:16:37 +0000, CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:35:14 -0600, Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
Good. Talking on the phone is much more dangerous than a couple of
cocktails.
So is driving while over-tired, which much of America does every
morning.
A friend of mine just put his car right into the back of another car while
driving down hwy 12... one second he was awake and driving, the next he
was in the middle of the intersection wondering why his air-bag was in his
face... no recollection of the crash, no feeling of drowsiness... just
turned off like a light switch behind the wheel. Luckily everyone turned
out okay despite both cars being totaled. Sleep deprivation is a scary
thing... and I'm driving around half asleep most of the time.
The problem with laws about cell phone use is that they have found that
people are equally impaired by talking to another occupant of the
vehicle. So yakking away was killing people long before cell phones
existed.
I've seen three different people in the last month stop at an intersection
at a green light or where they weren't required to stop at all yakking
away on the phone.
Driverless cars are starting to sound a lot less stupid than they used to.
carless drivers is the way to go. let them ride bicycles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
11 Jan 2008 03:35:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:02:26 -0500, cal <cal1360@gmail.com> wrote:
carless drivers is the way to go. let them ride bicycles.
When they build a bicycle that has all the power and the sound of a Mustang
V8, I'll buy one.
--
FUTURE, n. That period of time in which our affairs prosper, our friends
are true and our happiness is assured.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "cal" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
12 Jan 2008 05:10:49 PM |
|
|
On 1/11/08 4:35 PM, in article
57ofo3lhdeciqec0o26je3goul9g1f2ukq@news.easynews.com, "CyberDroog"
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:02:26 -0500, cal <cal1360@gmail.com> wrote:
carless drivers is the way to go. let them ride bicycles.
When they build a bicycle that has all the power and the sound of a Mustang
V8, I'll buy one.
you're going to love it. one kick on that pedal and you'll merge with the
scenery.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ivan Marsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
14 Jan 2008 10:48:09 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:35:08 +0000, CyberDroog wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:02:26 -0500, cal <cal1360@gmail.com> wrote:
carless drivers is the way to go. let them ride bicycles.
When they build a bicycle that has all the power and the sound of a
Mustang V8, I'll buy one.
....did you see the bike Dodge put out? It's built around a Viper V10.
--
I told you this was going to happen.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ivan Marsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
11 Jan 2008 03:38:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:35:08 +0000, CyberDroog wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:02:26 -0500, cal <cal1360@gmail.com> wrote:
carless drivers is the way to go. let them ride bicycles.
When they build a bicycle that has all the power and the sound of a
Mustang V8, I'll buy one.
....or heated Corinthian leather seats and a booming sound system.
--
I told you this was going to happen.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
10 Jan 2008 07:02:28 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:35:19 -0800, Janithor <JanithorHAW@comcast.net>
wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
Just pointing out that the law doesn't prevent tragedy. *People* prevent
tragedies.
Right, people prevent them in part with laws. IIRC, drunk driving
deaths have been cut in half since the 70's, while at the same time our
population has grown significantly. You think it should be legal for
people to pound some brewskies while driving? I'm sure you can do it
without consequence of course, but you're putting a lot of faith in your
fellow bipedal monkeys. I don't have that kind faith, therefore, if
they drink while driving I want them to sit in a jail cell for a while
until they get the point that that's a fucking stupid thing to do and
puts my life at risk.
It doesn't matter if it's legal or not. People will do as they wish. Note
that bathing with a toaster is perfectly legal, yet typically only people
intent on suicide do it.
No law doesn't mean no consequences. There are natural consequences in
civil law for killing someone via drunk driving. And there is a consequence
in natural law via the friends and family of the victim killing the drunk
driver.
Do you know how may vehicular fatalities are caused by over-tired drivers?
As many or more than those caused by drunk drivers according to some
studies.
--
MORAL, adj. Conforming to a local and mutable standard of right. Having
the quality of general expediency.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ivan Marsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
10 Jan 2008 09:54:14 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:02:28 +0000, CyberDroog wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:35:19 -0800, Janithor <JanithorHAW@comcast.net>
wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
Just pointing out that the law doesn't prevent tragedy. *People*
prevent tragedies.
Right, people prevent them in part with laws. IIRC, drunk driving
deaths have been cut in half since the 70's, while at the same time our
population has grown significantly. You think it should be legal for
people to pound some brewskies while driving? I'm sure you can do it
without consequence of course, but you're putting a lot of faith in your
fellow bipedal monkeys. I don't have that kind faith, therefore, if
they drink while driving I want them to sit in a jail cell for a while
until they get the point that that's a fucking stupid thing to do and
puts my life at risk.
It doesn't matter if it's legal or not. People will do as they wish.
Note that bathing with a toaster is perfectly legal, yet typically only
people intent on suicide do it.
No law doesn't mean no consequences. There are natural consequences in
civil law for killing someone via drunk driving. And there is a
consequence in natural law via the friends and family of the victim
killing the drunk driver.
Do you know how may vehicular fatalities are caused by over-tired
drivers? As many or more than those caused by drunk drivers according to
some studies.
....and when you consider a study can only include drunk drivers that were
in an accident or arrested the numbers skew even further towards drunk
driving being much less of a threat than it's made out to be. I'd love to
see the numbers from a study that could know the total number of drunk
drivers on the road at any one time.
Around here I'm guessing at least 40% of the people on the road on any
given Friday night.
That's why ANY study about the dangerous effects of any drug is *****.
"Total number of users" is a pretty big variable to not be able to include
in a study.
--
I told you this was going to happen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gayle" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
10 Jan 2008 11:10:29 AM |
|
|
Ivan Marsh wrote:
...and when you consider a study can only include drunk drivers that were
in an accident or arrested the numbers skew even further towards drunk
driving being much less of a threat than it's made out to be. I'd love to
see the numbers from a study that could know the total number of drunk
drivers on the road at any one time.
Around here I'm guessing at least 40% of the people on the road on any
given Friday night.
That's why ANY study about the dangerous effects of any drug is *****.
"Total number of users" is a pretty big variable to not be able to include
in a study.
In Mass., they occasionally (mostly around holidays) do
sobriety roadblocks, pulling over a random stream of cars
and conducting field sobriety tests. The percentage of
under-the-influence drivers, even mid-afternoon on
weekdays was surprising. To me. Of course, I can't
remember the ratio, but that would be the kind of stat yer
looking for. I think.
That this practice is without probable cause just gives
gleeful lawyers (and a shrinking group of others who might
care about the 4th amendment) grist for the mill.
Gayle
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Drink driving |
10 Jan 2008 11:44:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:10:29 -0500, Gayle <gayleco@rcn.com> wrote:
In Mass., they occasionally (mostly around holidays) do
sobriety roadblocks, pulling over a random stream of cars
and conducting field sobriety tests. The percentage of
under-the-influence drivers, even mid-afternoon on
weekdays was surprising. To me. Of course, I can't
remember the ratio, but that would be the kind of stat yer
looking for. I think.
That this practice is without probable cause just gives
gleeful lawyers (and a shrinking group of others who might
care about the 4th amendment) grist for the mill.
Too late. I think the Supreme Court put the 4th amendment to bed over ten
years ago when it came to sobriety checkpoints.
--
Everything in the world may be endured except continued prosperity.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
