Jeff -- no offense taken. I'm not out to be popular here (as usual). I believe DD laws have become more about politics and demonizing drinkers than about safety. If it was really about being impaired, where are the laws against driving while smoking? Driving while changing a CD in your car stereo? Driving while talking on a cell phone? Driving while looking in the mirror or putting on makeup? Driving while not getting enough sleep the previous night? Driving while playing your music too loud? While all these things impair the driver as much or more than alcohol, only alcohol is singled out. Why? Because it's an easy target. It's an easy way for someone to say "I'm making a difference", because nobody is going to argue. Nobody is going to come out and say that any legislation against drinking and driving is crossing the line. Try getting any legislation passed against talking on a cell phone while driving. It impairs drivers, so what's the problem? It will never pass because it's not popular. So you see, it's not about saving lives, it's about politics. Are you also willing to say "someone who drives on no sleep deserves what they get"? If we want to get down to what impairs judgement, let's have a driving test. Let's get a person who hasn't slept all night, a person who is talking on a cell phone, and a person who is at the .08 'limit' for DWI (so they've had probably 2 beers). Actually let's just say this was the same person, and them give him a driving test under all these conditions. Under which condition do you think he would perform better? Once the focus shifts from simply attacking drinkers, to treating all forms of impairment equally, I'll be happy to stop giving advice on how to avoid a DWI. Also, just because a death is 'alcohol-related', doesn't mean a drunk driver was the cause. If a drunk walks across the street and gets hit by a car, that's an alcohol-related traffic fatality. Remember the incident I think that happened last year or a couple of years ago at College Station, where a driver fell asleep and ended up killing 3 students? Can you imagine if that person had been 'under the influence' instead of asleep? He would've been executed by now.
Sam, My father is an alcoholic. He used to drive me home from school after being at a bar. I know what it is like to be terrified to even ride with a person who is supposed to care. I feared for my life nearly every day. I am being sanctimonious because driving after drinking is dangerous and irresponsible. Is that better for you? Freak: Are you also willing to say "someone who drives on no sleep deserves what they get"? Absolutely!!! I have done this before many many years ago and I will NEVER even attempt it again. I nearly killed myself and my passenger. It is just plain stupid. There are no excuses for driving in ANY impaired state. Period. There is a difference, however, in driving when your mental state is deficient and just being distracted. When you are distracted, you are able to stop being distracted and concentrate. You can stop and realize that it is time to put down the phone and start being safe. I have been REALLY working on this one myself. However, the only way to deal with being drunk or sleepy is to stop driving and either get sobered up or get some rest. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Sorry if I pushed a button with the word "sanctimonious". Listen, my father was (is?) an alcoholic. All 4 of my grandparents, too. I know exactly how you feel. All I was trying to point out is that you can judge these people all you want. Drinking and driving is one of the most dangerous, irresponsible things you can do. So is driving while sleep-deprived. For that matter, I'd lump those who drive while talking on their car phones into the mix. By the time you 'stop and realize its time to start being safe' it may be too late. I am glad you are working on that, and I hope that Texas passes stronger laws to prevent all types of dangerous driving habits. ------------------
DWI? Yeah, I've done it. Not very smart, not very responsible. Personally, I'd rather ride with someone who has had a few beers than with someone who is talking on a cell phone. At least the person who has been drinking (not drunk, mind you, just has been drinking) is trying to concentrate. The distracted person is exactly that: distracted. My mother, bless her heart, is a horrible driver. She rarely drinks, but is more apt to looking at the scenery or talking on the phone than paying attention to the road. Here is a joke: What is the difference between a drunk driver and a stoned driver? The drunk runs the stop sign. The stoner waits for it to turn green. ------------------ Hey, I've got a new signature! 302
You can't seriously believe that driving while your music is turned up loud is as dangerous as driving under the influence, right? I personally like to drive with my music up loud every time I drive, and I have never been in a accident. But I bet if someone were under the influence every time they drove, they would have a lot more accidents than me. ------------------ "Nothing is certain but the unforseen." Some Dude [This message has been edited by RunninRaven (edited October 24, 2000).]
1. When driving while talking on a cell phone or driving while sleepy, etc. are responsible for over 1,700 deaths per year in the State, you can bet that people will be all over it. But none of those things, even though they are dangerous, kills anywhere near as many people as alcohol-related crashes do. As for the breathalyzer test, if you refuse to do it, your license is automatically suspended for a year. You also can still be convicted. In larger cities, the police have specially trained officers who make a determination based on some sort of occular information as to whether you are intoxicated or not. A good many of these cases result in DWI convictions. So, not blowing is not a cure-all, though the chances of beating the rap would increase. By the way, Jordan Lee, the Anal Queen of p*rn, was once one of those specially trained officers for the Dallas Police Department. Those officers apparently got paid extra each time they had to come out and administer their test, so they liked it when suspected intoxicated drivers refused the breath test. (So much so that they conspried with other officers to convince drunk drivers to refuse to take the breathalyzer test). ------------------ Houston Sports Board
Ive only drove drunk twice. Once for prom (was so smashed that the next morning i was still a bit woozy) and the second time, I came way too close of hitting a bicyclist. It wasn't so much that I almost hit him, just the fact I did not see him as I turned past him ... 5 sec later I could have hit him. There have been times i have probably been over the .08 tol., but not even buzzed. From what I was told, if you do get pulled over, tell them you will take the breath test only after your lawyer gets there. Im sure they have found ways across that rule. ------------------ ...out with the old, in with the new...
I refuse to drink, I don't want to destroy my body. ------------------ please venture to atheistalliance and rocketsonline I AM SPARTACUS Bush and Gore make me want to Ralph votenader.com
DEANB: Are you aware that alcohol, in moderate amounts, is good for you? ------------------ Hey, I've got a new signature! 302
Lynus: I think you are referring to studies that show red wine to be beneficial for the heart. The alcohol is not the part that is good for you. Actually, further studies have shown that you can get the same amount of "good stuff" from grape juice as you can from red wine without the alcohol. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
How do you know? How do you measure if someone was 'sleepy' when they caused a wreck? How can you tell if a cell phone was on when a wreck was caused? I've already stated that the way alcohol-related traffic fatalities are counted is flawed (drunk pedestrian is killed = alcohol-related traffic fatality). Most importantly, there is no way to prove that alcohol is the cause of a wreck. You can measure BAC all you want, but you will never know that alcohol was the reason a wreck occurred. If your license is suspended for a year, you still have no record of a DWI. Having your license suspended is a walk in the park compared to getting a DWI. I've been pulled over maybe once (for an expection sticker) in at least 5 years. Chances are I would get away with a suspended license for a year. A suspended license is not that big of a deal compared to a DWI. How is that constitutional? Another case of demonizing drinkers. So now what someone thinks is enough to prove your BAC exceeds .08? I want to see what happens to the poor sap who tries to challenge that obvious injustice. I see where he gets his nickname, seeing as how he obviously enjoys raping people of their constitutional rights. ------------------ The Game Action forum has been overrun by idiots. The BBS Hangout is where it's at.
I only talk on my cell phone while driving if I'm really drunk and tired. I don't know why I do it; I usually can't hear anything above the stereo. ------------------ stop posting my damn signature
Jordan Lee is a female. As for the stats part. If 50% of vehicular fatalities are alcohol-related, it stands to reason that the other 50% are made up of everything else. And, in that particular stat, an alcohol-related crash consists only of accidents where alcohol was a contributing factor to the accident. Drunk pedestrians getting hit by unimpaired drivers is extremely rare, and unless the alcohol was a direct contributor to the fatality, it wouldn't count in the stats. How is it unconstitutional to present information regarding whether a person is drunk or not at a drunk driving trial? Is it unconstitutional for the police officers to testify that a driver was weaving or whatever at a drunk driving trial? You seem to think it should somehow be against the rules to present the information surrounding a drunk driving arrest at the person's trial. Drunk drivers need to be demonized. Every drunk driving accident is an unnecessary one that could easily be prevented if the driver would simply just not get behind the wheel in his impaired state. The dangers of talking on cell phones and the dangers of driving while sleepy are also being brought to people's attention. You seem to be saying that drunk driving just isn't so bad because other stuff isn't given as much attention. ------------------ Houston Sports Board [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited October 24, 2000).]
I don't feel comfortable arguing this any further. I still have my views on the subject, but I'll go ahead and keep them to myself. I've played enough devil's advocate on this one. [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited October 24, 2000).]
Yes I did, I was rather cocky. I do regret that. I took all the field tests, and let me say, those are hard to pass when you are sober. It was BS, but whatever. Let's say that I would have passed the breath test, they could still bust me right ? I wouldn't put it past them to say I did fail when I actually passed. ------------------ "I know how hard it is to put food on your family." George W. Bush
Jeff: I have heard and read several reports about red wine and beer being beneficial to your health. One glass of red wine contains the same amount of anti-oxidants as 32 glasses of orange juice. One pint of Guinness has all the vitamins and minerals as a balanced meal. The Irish army used to ration the stuff for the very same reason. Admittedly, I don't remember all of the specifics. I saw a report on the news within the last couple of months about a study showing that beer drinkers (who drink moderately) live longer than non-drinkers. ------------------ Hey, I've got a new signature! 302
Here are a couple of sites concerning the issue: http://www.shpm.com/qa/qaatd/qaatd33.html http://www.peele.net/ Jeff: It seems you are right about the grape juice. I didn't know that. I still want to buy you a beer after the arena gets passed. ------------------ Hey, I've got a new signature! 302
