Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Drunk Driving Incidents
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
leg.donor



Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 2756
Location: Portland, OR
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
I don't know that a guy who is pulled over with a broken taillight, but is otherwise driving fine and hasn't hurt or threatened anyone should be taken to jail, fined $1,000 and be treated like a murderous addict. Just so that sheriffs and politicians can market themselves as tough on DUIs.


That's pretty much the story of my dui, and I'm in the process of filing for bankruptcy as a result.
Post Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
AdamBomb



Joined: 05 Mar 2004
Posts: 3183
Location: Louisiana
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
I don't know that a guy who is pulled over with a broken taillight, but is otherwise driving fine and hasn't hurt or threatened anyone should be taken to jail, fined $1,000 and be treated like a murderous addict. Just so that sheriffs and politicians can market themselves as tough on DUIs.


I look at it a bunch of ways, if you get into an accident where someone else is at fault, if you had been drinking, you get the blame. What could make it worse is if the other person gets hurt (or dies). If you drink a few, maybe you are an awesome driver. Can you 100% guarantee some other idiot isn't going to accidentally hit you?

The other thing, is regardless of the agenda of what creates the laws/enforcement, the consequence pretty much sucks. Its totally just not worth the risk.

If you've ever lost anyone you knew due to a drunk driving accident, it adds a lot to your stance on it. I think the laws are in place to deter the sloppy drunks from stumbling into their vehicles and blurrily slamming into innocent people. The tough part is how do you define what is drunk and what isn't. Don't you agree there needs to be some sort of deterrent?
Post Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2215
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

Is knowing that you might kill innocent people or yourself not a deterrent?
Post Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:53 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
leg.donor



Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 2756
Location: Portland, OR
 Reply with quote  

leg.donor wrote:
tommi teardrop wrote:
I don't know that a guy who is pulled over with a broken taillight, but is otherwise driving fine and hasn't hurt or threatened anyone should be taken to jail, fined $1,000 and be treated like a murderous addict. Just so that sheriffs and politicians can market themselves as tough on DUIs.


That's pretty much the story of my dui, and I'm in the process of filing for bankruptcy as a result.


oh except i was fined 6000 (not including diversion, attorney and court fee's)
Post Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:56 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
AdamBomb



Joined: 05 Mar 2004
Posts: 3183
Location: Louisiana
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
Is knowing that you might kill innocent people or yourself not a deterrent?


I thought that was the obvious one, but added the other standpoints for reinforcement. If I drink 3 beers, I'm not going to kill someone (which I thought would be like the person you are talking about with the tailight). 3 beers = harmless. But, if I drink 3 then some horrible driver collides with my car (their fault) whose fault is the cop going to think it is?
Post Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:57 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
PHIL LACIO AKA P DAWG
the godfather of troll


Joined: 18 Oct 2002
Posts: 4825
 Reply with quote  

leg.donor wrote:
tommi teardrop wrote:
I don't know that a guy who is pulled over with a broken taillight, but is otherwise driving fine and hasn't hurt or threatened anyone should be taken to jail, fined $1,000 and be treated like a murderous addict. Just so that sheriffs and politicians can market themselves as tough on DUIs.


That's pretty much the story of my dui, and I'm in the process of filing for bankruptcy as a result.



court fines, fees, etc are not dischargeable in a bankruptcy
Post Thu Sep 10, 2009 12:19 am
 View user's profile Send private message
cakes



Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 2586
 Reply with quote  

Sage Francis wrote:
I can't get down with the texting-and-driving hate.
I just can't.
We drive, our eyes dart around...we look at the radio...we look at the spedometer...we look at the rear view mirror to blow kisses to ourselves. And we glance down at the phone from time to time to make sure the last couple sentences we wrote weren't totally incoherent.

Some people can't chew gum and walk. Some people can't text and drive. But I text and drive from coast to coast on a yearly basis. If I ever get in an accident and I have a phone in my hand while it happens, that's just because I always have a phone in my hand. Just so ya know.
i have nothing more to say about drunken shenanegans, but i agree with this. i barely talk on the phone, let alone when i'm driving, but when i do text, i spend just as much time looking at the phone as i do my ipod. and though researchers report that phone talking on hand vs. headset doesn't make much of a difference, i drive a standard and it makes a difference for me. two hands to respond is just better than one, end of story. and my friend whose job requires him to spend the day in his truck is better than i am at multi-tasking while driving. plus he can text basically without looking. you could tell him he can't eat his lunch in there too, or drink his coffee to stay awake in the morning, but we can only go so far with this shit.

if texting it's illegal, you'll probably still do it. or you'll spend more time with your ipod instead. or you'll just say you were checking your missed calls when they pull you over (there are time stamps on messages of course, but they don't always send right when you write them, so i doubt they're reliable to use as hard evidence, plus, i imagine they have to catch you in the act. can't just pull someone over and then ask to look at your phone, can they?).

i donno how the parents here feel, but a mother i talked to last night said she doesn't think there's anything that could be more distracting than babies/kids in the back.
Post Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:14 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Travadone



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 2977
Location: LI(f)E SUCKS (The Album)
 Reply with quote  

I got pulled over for talking on my cell while driving in ct. The officer gave me a ticket and told me to buy a hands free headpiece and bring the receipt to the courthouse and it will be thrown out...I was in and out of the courthouse within 5 min after showing my reciept. I then returned the blu tooth and got my money back and now use the hands free earphone that came with my blackberry.
Post Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:34 am
 View user's profile Send private message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6870
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

"I can do this because it's never caused an accident before."

The fallacy in this is that avoiding accidents in the past is not an indicator that you will avoid accidents in the future. Not having an accident is a matter of luck as much as it is skill. I like to say that there are massive amounts of entropy on the roads, and there are. Every time you get into your vehicle there is something different, the people driving immediately around you, the structure of the traffic flow, the condition of the road you drive on, the condition of the vehicle you're in, etc. Most accidents are not caused by drivers who simply can't point their car straight, or are too intoxicate. Most accidents are caused by drivers who are unable to properly react to conditions around them.

Take the story of the 3 year old killed earlier in this thread. That could very easily have been a texter. The victims car was almost unable to stop in the first place. The difference between stopping safely and an accident was most likely under a second. The difference between a minor accident and that fatality was likely less than that. How long do you take your eyes off the road when you text? It's likely not to be for a split second. During that time you're also diverting your attention and at least one of your hands.

At 55 miles per hour you are traveling 80 feet per second. A single second is 4 car lengths. Most cars go from 60 to 0 in around 150 feet. Look up your model on the net to see what it tested at. Those tests are typically conducted by trained professionals in good conditions with a well tuned car. You'll never match that under normal conditions, unless something external slows you down. If you are texting and that slows your reaction time by 1 second then you've increased the time it takes you to stop by 50%. 50% could be someone's life.

As for iPods... I bought a Sony replacement stereo for my car at Best Buy last year. It has an ipod connector that goes to my glove compartment. We have an iPod Mini in there. Now I can use the primarily touch controls without taking much attention from the road. However, I try not to screw with it. I leave it on shuffle and typically adjust the volume before I go. This thing was $100 or so, totally worth it considering how distracting it can be to use that device while driving.

If you never get into an accident this way then good. That doesn't mean that you're not contributing to the problem. A few things to think of: How do you discern who is or isn't capable of driving while texting? Do we issue a test and a special "multitasker" [which, of course multitasking is a myth] license? Or do we just wait until they get into an accident and say sternly, "Don't do it again!?"

Also, how do you measure your behavior? Is not getting into an accident good enough? Are you positive that your actions are not the kind that are shown to cause accidents? Do you drift lanes? Are you distracted near traffic signals? Have you ever been surprised by someone in your blind spot? Have you had to make abrupt turns or stops because you almost missed something [a turn to take, your destination, etc.]? There's a whole host of other events, often referred to as "close calls." These are events that don't lead to an accident most of the time, but they are often found to be the cause of accidents. The only reason why they don't lead to an accident is that luck is on your side, either another driver isn't there to collide with you or they're paying enough attention to avoid collision. There's a theory called the Safety Pyramid that says for every 300 of these there are 29 minor (classified as a collision without a fatality) accidents, and a fatal one. Obviously the numbers are simplistic, but fleet tracking companies have begun to prove this statistically. Maybe you never become one of the unlucky 30, but the chances of contributing to that fatal 1 are too high considering the relative unimportance of nearly all text messages.

Lastly, note that the defense for texting while driving is the same as that of drinking and driving. At issue is that people have not accepted that texting while driving is dangerous, while it is common knowledge that drinking and driving is. Everyone that does it thinks they are more able than others, just as almost everyone thinks they're a "good" driver.
Post Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:07 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
zagadka
DARK PAST HAVER


Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 4932
Location: Hous of Gaga
 Reply with quote  

damn, Redball is on the...ball.
Post Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:15 am
 View user's profile Send private message
mortalthoughts
LAME KID


Joined: 12 Dec 2002
Posts: 11616
Location: MI
 Reply with quote  

Confidential wrote:
AdamBomb wrote:
Confidential wrote:


The logic behind this is to take a drunk driver, who is probably poor and likely an alcoholic make their life miserable through economic coercion, and that will teach them a lesson they will never forget.




I don't really agree with this. I've seen the behavior across all social lines and age groups.

That was poorly worded. A first time DUI is easier to go through if you are wealthy. if you are poor, it can ruin your life for a long time to come, probably cause a lot of frustration and feelings of constant worry and helplessness about the future and trigger the urge to drink. This has been my experience.

trigger the urge to drink?!?! hardly.... i shamefully got one about 3 years ago and quit drinking for about 2 years while i went through court/probation and hardly drink now
i dont think that its right to pigeonhole people like that when its soooo different on a case by case basis

wealthy people might get through it eaiser because of cash but id be intrested to see any statistics on repeat offenders wealthy vs. the poor
Post Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:25 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Sarcastro



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3281
 Reply with quote  

zagadka wrote:
damn, Redball is on the...ball.
Post Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:27 am
 View user's profile Send private message
cakes



Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 2586
 Reply with quote  

well, statistically speaking, the fact that you've never gotten to an accident can either help or hurt you (especially if you take violations into account). it will lower your percentage of incidence which is one way to demonstrate "safeness", or it could imply that you're due for one. it can speak to how you would most likely react to a situation in the future. my buddy who drives twice as fast as me on his motorcycle has gotten into at least three times as many accidents as I have. it's not a fallacy, it's a prediction, which obviously won't always come true. and this whole argument is that when people don't text, they won't get into the accident that would have been caused by the texting. you have to find some way to measuring to form these arguments.

redball wrote:
Lastly, note that the defense for texting while driving is the same as that of drinking and driving.
this is not on the ball, this is reaching. the argument for texting and drunk driving is not the same. texting and any other hand held device, of course (good ipod idea, i should look into that). however, when using those devices, you are only impaired for the time that you are using the device and not looking, such as admiring the dog or the chick you just drove by. drunk driving is an impairment in brain function, ie, decrease in response time, which is present the entire time you are inebriated. me texting for thirty seconds is nowhere near the same as the dude who can barely stand up driving across town.

i'm not arguing whether or not it's dangerous, just as driving at all can be, i just think there needs to be a line drawn on how much you can control by law.

the following are all dangerous and can take just as much time away from focus as sending a short text:
eating french fries and a burger (or the new salads) from the fast food joint at the rest stop (you know, the one with the drive through window)
putting on make-up at a red light
reaching for your child's sippy cup
screaming at other drivers
reading street names when you're lost
not wearing sun glasses when the sun is blaring in your eyes
checking out the fucking awesome rainbow in front of you
etc., etc., etc.
Post Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:34 am
 View user's profile Send private message
remind



Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 2197
Location: NJ
 Reply with quote  

cakes wrote:

me texting for thirty seconds is nowhere near the same as the dude who can barely stand up driving across town.


Just for the record, if I was at the point where I couldn't stand or walk straight, I wouldn't drive. Ever. Not trying to save face nor say that what I did was acceptable. Just saying.
Post Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:39 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
SteveJB



Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 429
Location: Salisbury UK
 Reply with quote  

cakes wrote:

me texting for thirty seconds is nowhere near the same as the dude who can barely stand up driving across town.


But if a situation occurs where you need your reactions to be as fast as they can be to avoid a serious accident during that 30s the result is still the same.
Post Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:06 am
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:51 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon