Drinking and driving

[Terry Given]

learning@learning.com wrote:

In <iu9g61p2pvkm9afug5rv3tog7lhrk4otcu@4ax.com>, on 04/21/05
at 10:28 PM, Tom MacIntyre <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> said:


On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:37:24 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


learning@learning.com wrote:

The fact that someone may be classified as legally drunk, doesn't mean
that such a state was actually responsible for any associated deaths.



I tend to agree. I think it's the ones who get aggressive and stupid when
they are drunk that are the problem. I don't agree with drinking and
driving, but, when younger and more foolish, I consistently did just
that, often when seriously drunk (we're not talking .09 here), for about
a 5 year period before I stopped. Never hit a person, dog, or car.


As far as you know <wink, wink>


Granted, most was late at night when the roads weren't as busy. When
drunk, I was the most cautious driver you ever met; I wouldn't take any
(other) chances. I credit that for my good fortune in not creating a bad
statistic, not that I was a great driver when drunk.


That, and the lack of other drivers not only late at night, but simply
less population. I am as guilty as you for being a foolish teenager, but I
am not about to brag that I drove drunk, under control and as careful as a
kitten. I thought I did at the time, but reason and logic tells me
otherwise.

JB

I will brag:

I *never* drove drunk between the ages of 15-24, where statistically we
are most vulnerable. This was the result of a conscious act on my part
to *not* learn how to drive until I was 24. I figured if I didnt know
how to drive at all, I was pretty unlikely to drive drunk. It worked, in
that I survived.

OTOH I had my motorcycle license when I was 16, and engaged in vast
amounts of stupid behaviour - eg surfing (whilst pissed and stoned) on
top of a 5T truck at 2am, while Andy drove (drunk) sans headlights down
a steep, windy road coming back from the blue lake.

I only tried riding drunk once. It was after an engineering party at my
house that got very messy (thankfully the girls present prevented any
atrocities with the sheep Des stole from One Tree Hill, but it shat all
over the carpet. Des took it home, killed it and we ate it the next day
at a keg party). About 2am I decided to ride 500m down the road to a
burger bar. Aftert falling off for the 7th time while trying to
kick-start my little CG110, I realised it was a bad idea, so I took off
the panties then the helmet, wiped off the whipped cream and walked
(staggered really) up the road. The next day, when I finished vomiting,
I was rather glad I made that choice.

Some friends and I were discussing this sort of behaviour the other day,
and we had *all* done similarly stupid things when young. Miraculously,
none of us died (although Andy killed a motorcyclist who hit the truck).

Cheers
Terry

 

[Bob Monsen]

Boris Mohar wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:55:15 -0600, learning@learning.com wrote:


In <1sbg619vr2nr14gcci905uq8faotum369u@4ax.com>, on 04/21/05
at 07:00 PM, Boris Mohar <borism_-void-_@sympatico.ca> said:



Why is that? Most accidents are still caused by people that are
not drunken. The roads are safe enough as they are. There are
risks involved getting out of the house. And to staying home as well.
In a car you have 99.99% less chance getting electrocuted, for starters.
Interesting studies of 20 years ago... boring pieces of crap, more
likely. Statistics are often crap, and summaries are the worst.



Because no one here, or anywhere else, has quantified exactly what an
"accident" involves. Banging into the car in front of you at the
intersection is just life in the city, and not worthy of concern, but its
still an accident.

Without hard facts and numbers, and a useless attempt to note the
seriousness of the "accident" the stats don't mean anything.

What I do know is that far too many of the late night wrecks on the TV,
where people are dead, or seriously injured, seem to include high levels
of alchohol in the blood. Not all, but certainly quite a few.

Saying that most accidents are caused by people who are not drunk is an
empty comment, because hitting a tree in the neighborhood does not compare
to flying across the median and taking out a family on the way to gramma's

Some here don't think that is any big deal, but I bet a lot more think it
warrants some attention.

JB


You snipped out the wrong part. You are really quoting Frank under my post
that you clipped out. I hope that was an accident.

Perhaps he was typing while under the influence...

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Paul Hovnanian P.E.
<Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote (in <426822EF.82800339@Hovnanian.com&gt about
'Drinking and driving', on Thu, 21 Apr 2005:

However, I read a summary of an interesting study done about 20 years
ago. It concluded that the measurable effects of alcohol on the human
nervous system persist for up to 5 days following a person's drinking.

Was there ever any independent confirmation? I suspect not. Alcohol
concentrations would be at homeopathic levels after five days. The
results could have been stress-induced.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that learning@learning.com wrote (in
<42683ca7$3$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net&gt about 'Drinking and driving',
on Thu, 21 Apr 2005:

Yep, statistics are for the weak and mindless. Driving drunk, now that
is what intelligent people do.

No-one has put forward such a view.

As long as its not the complete and utter cause of ALL accidents, there
is absolutely no sense in doing anything about it, right?

No-one has put forward such a view. The point is that hysterical
concentration on the Demon Drink is inappropriate.

Makes me wonder why we bother to try to find cures for cancer, when
cancer is not the cause of the most deaths in the world.

Your sarcastic comment is actually supported by many medical people.
Over-concentration on cancer can starve other public health issues of
funds, and these are not trivial issues - AIDS, flu, TB, malaria. A
balance is necessary.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that learning@learning.com wrote (in
42683ca7$3$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net&gt about 'Drinking and
driving', on Thu, 21 Apr 2005:

Yep, statistics are for the weak and mindless. Driving drunk, now
that is what intelligent people do.

No-one has put forward such a view.

As long as its not the complete and utter cause of ALL accidents,
there is absolutely no sense in doing anything about it, right?

No-one has put forward such a view. The point is that hysterical
concentration on the Demon Drink is inappropriate.

Makes me wonder why we bother to try to find cures for cancer, when
cancer is not the cause of the most deaths in the world.

Indeed it is not. Living is the cause of all deaths.

Your sarcastic comment is actually supported by many medical people.
Over-concentration on cancer can starve other public health issues of
funds, and these are not trivial issues - AIDS, flu, TB, malaria. A
balance is necessary.

Although it seems that the rare killer AIDS is starving research into
thse more significant diseases.

Anyway this out of control meme thing of trying to maximise our numbers
can't go on. It was 3B in the 70's, 6.5B now. Sure, I don't know what
the population limit of the world is, but there is indeed a limit. If we
don't start letting people die, it will be shit for the rest of us.

I vote for more smoking advertising. Currently, at Ł15B net tax tobacco
revenues against only Ł1.5B net extra health costs, makes smoking a
winner for the rest of us. Not to mention the more left over from Social
Security for my retirement, as the smokers are popping off earlier.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Spajky]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:03:21 -0600, learning@learning.com wrote:

Never drink & drive! Stop if driving, than drink & stop drinking
before start driving again .. ..
--
Regards , SPAJKY ÂŽ
mail addr. @ my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
3rd Ann.: - "Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"

 

[Paul Burke]

Spajky wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:03:21 -0600, learning@learning.com wrote:

Never drink & drive! Stop if driving, than drink & stop drinking
before start driving again .. ..

One argument against drinking and driving is that you might spill some..

 

In <jU3cdFE4cJaCFw2j@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, on 04/22/05
at 07:18 AM, John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> said:

Yep, statistics are for the weak and mindless. Driving drunk, now that
is what intelligent people do.

No-one has put forward such a view.

sarcasm?

As long as its not the complete and utter cause of ALL accidents, there
is absolutely no sense in doing anything about it, right?

No-one has put forward such a view. The point is that hysterical
concentration on the Demon Drink is inappropriate.

Sarcasm again?

You might call it hysterical, but perhaps its because drunk driving is an
issue with a very simple solution? Other social problems, and diseases are
not so easly cured.

Makes me wonder why we bother to try to find cures for cancer, when
cancer is not the cause of the most deaths in the world.

Your sarcastic comment is actually supported by many medical people.
Over-concentration on cancer can starve other public health issues of
funds, and these are not trivial issues - AIDS, flu, TB, malaria. A
balance is necessary.

Well, we know how to stop AIDS, influenza is fairly well controlled. TB is
not a threat that we have no answer for, and malaria is knocked down
pretty hard by the simple application of DDT. The solutions are there, we
are just too ignorant to apply the cure in many cases.

Sickness and diseases kill people, and we need to work the solutions.
Smoking kills the smoker, so who cares. Many deaths are attributed to
one's failure to take care of one's self, and so there is no need to look
for a "cure" as we know the answer.

Drinking and driving kills innoccents, and since the 'cure' is so simple,
I fail to see why so many seem to not to care, or at the very least, they
mock it. I guess it is because no one they love or care about has yet to
be a victim.

The idea that "demon rum" is 'over-concentrated' is true in the sense that
religious people make a big deal out drinking overall, but I am
dissapointed to see that intelligent men have such little interest in
protecting innocent people from stupid people. Its not about "demon run"
as much as it should be about making certain that one person does not kill
another. If we have such little concern for the safety of others, what
does that say about our society?

Its true what you say about some people getting hysterical over alchohol
in general, but why is it a bad thing to want to put an end to the killing
of innocent people by those who drink and drive? If one stays at home and
drinks or does their drugs till they die, I am okay with that, but I think
it is wrong to not be concerned when the go out among the public and
inflict injury and death on others because of their condition.

It is amusing tho, to watch folks stir the pot by pretending to put forth
a cavalier attitude, and making out like drunk driving is nothing to worry
about. I guess that is what keeps it interesting around here.. <g>



JB

 

In <1757808.0504220628.10518786@posting.google.com>, on 04/22/05
at 07:28 AM, dmb06851@yahoo.com (dB) said:

learning@learning.com wrote

Because no one here, or anywhere else, has quantified exactly what an
"accident" involves.

It involves irresponsibility and incompetence, both on the part of road
users and those who maintain vehicles.

Nah.... Sometimes there are just accidents. It is not always someone's
fault. The great thinkers here will apply their Einstein logic and cry out
that everything is under our control, but that is just in their minds and
has little to do with reality. The facts are, that sometimes, things just
happen, even in an automobile.

The list is endless, but start with the fact that EVERYONE has to learn
how to drive. So if someone is learning, and they make a mistake from lack
of experience, we call that an accident. They did not mean to do it, and
it just happened. When someone gets behind the wheel when they are drunk,
and they kill someone, that is not an accident. Its called a wreck, and
the drunk is most likely the culprit.

Parse the meaning of the word "is" if you want to, and apply the clinton
method of bastardizing the language to suit your need, but an accident is
just that. Killing someone because one stupidly got drunk and then drove
their car into someone else's is not an accident.

Anyway...... probably time to change the channel on this one.

JB

 

[Bob Stephens]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:01:37 -0600, learning@learning.com wrote:

<Snick>

Anyway...... probably time to change the channel on this one.

JB

Hallelujah!


Bob

 

[Pat Ford]

<learning@learning.com> wrote in message
news:426913cc$2$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...

In <1757808.0504220628.10518786@posting.google.com>, on 04/22/05
at 07:28 AM, dmb06851@yahoo.com (dB) said:


Parse the meaning of the word "is" if you want to, and apply the clinton
method of bastardizing the language to suit your need, but an accident is
just that. Killing someone because one stupidly got drunk and then drove
their car into someone else's is not an accident.

I think that should be murder, if you engage in an activity that could
reasonably lead to the death of someone else that is murder isn't it?

Pat

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:58:48 +0100, Paul Burke wrote:

Spajky wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:03:21 -0600, learning@learning.com wrote:

Never drink & drive! Stop if driving, than drink & stop drinking
before start driving again .. ..

One argument against drinking and driving is that you might spill some..

There was a time when there were TV ads: "Gasoline and Alcohol don't mix",
until some pundit came up with "Actually, they do, but it tastes terrible."

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Kevin Aylward]

dB wrote:

learning@learning.com wrote

Because no one here, or anywhere else, has quantified exactly what an
"accident" involves.

It involves irresponsibility and incompetence, both on the part of
road users and those who maintain vehicles.

Accidents are a fact of life. Its is how life came about...

Sure, there is always someone wanting to blame someone, but the universe
is way to complicated for any of us to be able to make correct
predictions all the time, even if quantum mechanics were false. Getting
thing "wrong" does not imply that anything "wrong" was done. getting
things "right" are the real accidents.


Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Frank Bemelman]

<learning@learning.com> schreef in bericht
news:42691193$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...

In <jU3cdFE4cJaCFw2j@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, on 04/22/05

[snip childish rubbish]

PLONK!

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:tg5ae.16402$Pc.8596@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that learning@learning.com wrote (in
42683ca7$3$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net&gt about 'Drinking and
driving', on Thu, 21 Apr 2005:

Yep, statistics are for the weak and mindless. Driving drunk, now
that is what intelligent people do.

No-one has put forward such a view.

As long as its not the complete and utter cause of ALL accidents,
there is absolutely no sense in doing anything about it, right?

No-one has put forward such a view. The point is that hysterical
concentration on the Demon Drink is inappropriate.

Makes me wonder why we bother to try to find cures for cancer, when
cancer is not the cause of the most deaths in the world.

Indeed it is not. Living is the cause of all deaths.


Your sarcastic comment is actually supported by many medical people.
Over-concentration on cancer can starve other public health issues of
funds, and these are not trivial issues - AIDS, flu, TB, malaria. A
balance is necessary.

Although it seems that the rare killer AIDS is starving research into
thse more significant diseases.

Anyway this out of control meme thing of trying to maximise our numbers
can't go on. It was 3B in the 70's, 6.5B now. Sure, I don't know what
the population limit of the world is, but there is indeed a limit. If we
don't start letting people die, it will be shit for the rest of us.

I vote for more smoking advertising. Currently, at Ł15B net tax tobacco
revenues against only Ł1.5B net extra health costs, makes smoking a
winner for the rest of us. Not to mention the more left over from Social
Security for my retirement, as the smokers are popping off earlier.

Makes sense to me as well. If you are going to die, it may as well
be for a good reason. Smoke, drink, screw around, pay tax and don't
piss of the neighbours.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Clarence_A]

<learning@learning.com> wrote in message
news:42691193$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...

In <jU3cdFE4cJaCFw2j@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, on 04/22/05
at 07:18 AM, John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk
said:

Yep, statistics are for the weak and mindless. Driving drunk,
now that
is what intelligent people do.

No-one has put forward such a view.

sarcasm?

snip

He is only trying to protect those here on this NG from your dumb
remarks!

It is only your view. It is Factually illegal to drink to the
point the person is unable to safely drive, or to use drugs that
have the same effect, or to drive when legally blind. Or stupid!

Your tirade has no purpose, and there is no need for your putting
the comments here!

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> schreef in bericht
news:jU3cdFE4cJaCFw2j@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

[snip]

Your sarcastic comment is actually supported by many medical people.
Over-concentration on cancer can starve other public health issues of
funds, and these are not trivial issues - AIDS, flu, TB, malaria. A
balance is necessary.

Elderly people require more medical care than others. It would be nice
if a greater part of the available funds was spend on giving these
folks a better quality of life. Because quality of life is not just health
or trying to repair the unrepairable physical defects. I vote for
spending more funds on a more social society, rather than just look
at the physical health of elderly indiviuals. The net result of the
current attitude towards these issues only adds a couple of years to
their otherwise miserable lives. I vote for 50% discount on drinks in
the local pub for age 65+, 75% discount on taxi's, 100% discount on public
transport, 65% discount on services provided by the oldest trade, free
soup, free postage for postcards, tax-free shopping, eh, did I forget
something...?

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

In <42695393$0$138$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, on 04/22/05
at 09:43 PM, "Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> said:

learning@learning.com> schreef in bericht
news:42691193$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...
In <jU3cdFE4cJaCFw2j@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, on 04/22/05

[snip childish rubbish]

PLONK!

Another person who derives his self esteem from knowing how to use a
filter, as he cries for attention to his dim-witted action.

Who cares <shrug>

 

In <%Dcae.2073$zX7.1123@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, on 04/22/05
at 07:54 PM, "Clarence_A" <no@No.com> said:

learning@learning.com> wrote in message
news:42691193$1$woehfu$mr2ice@news.aros.net...
In <jU3cdFE4cJaCFw2j@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, on 04/22/05
at 07:18 AM, John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk
said:

Yep, statistics are for the weak and mindless. Driving drunk,
now that
is what intelligent people do.

No-one has put forward such a view.

sarcasm?

snip

He is only trying to protect those here on this NG from your dumb
remarks!

It is only your view. It is Factually illegal to drink to the point the
person is unable to safely drive, or to use drugs that have the same
effect, or to drive when legally blind. Or stupid!

Your tirade has no purpose, and there is no need for your putting the
comments here!

Well sure there is. I am entitled to say whatever I want, whenever I
want. For proof, just note that you do the same thing, only you wait till
the thread is pretty much run its course, then you stick in your comments,
which have virtually no reemable value.

Who cares what you think?

 

[Clarence_A]

"qrk" wrote

martin griffith wrote:
learning@learning.com wrote:

The topic led me to a web page that reports percentages of
fatalities due
to drunk driving in each state which was rather revealing.
Apparently, by their count, the worst is Rhode Island, at 55%,
but what
caught my eye was Hawaii coming in second at 53%.
I can understand boozing if you are stuck in Rhode Island,
but why would you need to get drunk in Hawaii??
JB

1)If you dont know how to surf
2) It's an island. Island mentality will set in
3) It's full of Americans
martin

Most of the folks in Hawaii are Americans. Yes, there is a
pretty
large Asian immigrant population. Island mentality sets in on
outsiders who can't adopt to the customs of Hawaii. They are
also the
ones that are socially shunned because they are too bigoted to
accept
different cultures.

As to the drinking, like most other people in the world, folks
in
Hawaii enjoy boozing with friends.

There are, or at least were, many Japanese tourists. They stayed
drunk most of the time. Very good for the Hookers! I heard they
would pay $600 for a Blond!

As to the statistic, posted speeds in Hawaii are rarely above 45
mph.

BUT they have H1 and H2 on Oahu. No one drives below 85, traffic
permitting. The Kamehamcha Highway (HWY 99) was posted at 50MPH,
and there were an average of two 'accident's a day with at least
one car (or Truck) doing about 75MPH. I tried to stay on the side
roads and since I wasn't out much (Working 10-12 hours a day.) I
was not involved in any accidents.

During the day, the speed is kept below 25 mph due to massive
traffic
jams. If you think driving in L.A. is bad, try Oahu during rush
hour.
A 16 mile commute can take 1 to 1.5 hours. The speeds tend to be
low
enough where it is rare for someone to die in an accident. The
people
who die or kill in traffic accidents(?) are probably some blalah
who
has just downed a case of Olympia and T-boned a car.

Mark