Driving ban for life after DUI? Drunk driving - from it is OK to execution, ect....


Cannuck
#331
CDC Data & Statistics | Feature: Insufficient Sleep Is a Public Health Epidemic

Quote:

Sleep-Related Unhealthy Behaviors

The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey included a core question regarding perceived insufficient rest or sleep in 2008 (included since 1995 on the Health Related Quality of Life module) and an optional module of four questions on sleep behavior in 2009. Data from the 2009 BRFSS Sleep module were used to assess the prevalence of unhealthy/sleep behaviors by selected sociodemographic factors and geographic variations in 12 states. The analysis [PDF - 1.1MB], determined that, among 74,571 adult respondents in 12 states, 35.3% reported <7 hours of sleep during a typical 24-hour period, 48.0% reported snoring, 37.9% reported unintentionally falling asleep during the day at least once in the preceding month, and 4.7% reported nodding off or falling asleep while driving at least once in the preceding month. This is the first CDC surveillance report to include estimates of drowsy driving and unintentionally falling asleep during the day. The National Department of Transportation estimates drowsy driving to be responsible for 1,550 fatalities and 40,000 nonfatal injuries annually in the United States .2




Sleep And Coping With Shift Work - Tips and Advice - Bupa

Quote:

Shift work isn’t easy because it involves working against your body’s natural rhythm. You need to be active and alert at night when your body is designed to sleep — and need to sleep in the day when you’re wired to be awake. Many shift workers are also driving at times when their body clock tells them to sleep — research has shown that shift workers are six times more likely to be in a fatigue-related road accident than other workers

 
JLM
#332
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

CDC Data & Statistics | Feature: Insufficient Sleep Is a Public Health Epidemic






Sleep And Coping With Shift Work - Tips and Advice - Bupa

Another example of statistics! -
 
L Gilbert
+1
#333
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

No I'm not. I said I don't know. I don't know how many times I need to say that before you understand.

Why say that it's a horrendous cost then?

Quote:

Everybody is entitled to an opinion regardless of whether they care to look deeper.

Dance around all you like. The implication of what all your posts in this thread that are actually related to the topic are saying is that you've reached a conclusion and even less subtle after you started "extrapolating" from the stat I posted.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Because they lump all impaired drivers together. I see no reason to believe, given my own personal experience, that a driver at 0.08 is the same risk as a driver at 0.16. As I've said, I could be wrong but I haven't seen any statistical data that would contradict my own personal experience. I think I already posted that, as a firefighter, I've been to some nasty DD wrecks. I'd bet 6 months of paychecks that not a single one involved a driver under 0.10

Yet I posted the stats of how many are, in fact, in said wrecks. And you even started "extrapolating" from the stats. Really, how do you think those drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 died if they weren't in wrecks?

Keep dancing.

lol Look, you poor, dumb ****wit, hand me all the reds you like. It will not make me stop pointing out that you are only making yourself look like a fool.
 
Cannuck
#334
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

lol Look, you poor, dumb ****wit, hand me all the reds you like. It will not make me stop pointing out that you are only making yourself look like a fool.

LOL...I'm not the one looking like a fool. I've explained my point of view too many times to count. If you are unable to grasp it, perhaps this thread is just a little over your head and you should run along.

Why do you feel you have to respond with childish name calling?
 
L Gilbert
+2
#335
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

LOL...I'm not the one looking like a fool. I've explained my point of view too many times to count. If you are unable to grasp it, perhaps this thread is just a little over your head and you should run along.

Sorry, I got what you say is your point. I'm simply pointing out that besides your "point" you are also adding little hints that you have (or had) reached a conclusion.

Quote:

Why do you feel you have to respond with childish name calling?

Why can't you stick to the topic?

You're avoiding most of my post and choosing to reply to only part of it. Why?

Again, why say that it's a horrendous cost then?

I posted the stats of how many are, in fact, in said wrecks. And you even started "extrapolating" from the stats. Really, how do you think those drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 died if they weren't in wrecks?
 
Cannuck
#336
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

you are also adding little hints that you have (or had) reached a conclusion.

That is your interpretation. It is wrong.

Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Why can't you stick to the topic?

I'm trying to. The topic is DWI not silly name calling. Why can't you stick to the topic?

Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

You're avoiding most of my post and choosing to reply to only part of it. Why?

Because you're just regurgitating the same nonsense that has already been replied to. Try to come up with something new.
 
L Gilbert
+2
#337
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

That is your interpretation. It is wrong.

Doesn't look like it to anyone but you.



Quote:

I'm trying to. The topic is DWI not silly name calling. Why can't you stick to the topic?

lol I will when you do.



Quote:

Because you're just regurgitating the same nonsense that has already been replied to. Try to come up with something new.

Try to quit inserting adjectives that give your commennts a bias then.

Again, why say that it's a horrendous cost then?

I posted the stats of how many are, in fact, in said wrecks. And you even started "extrapolating" from the stats. Really, how do you think those drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 died if they weren't in wrecks?
 
Cannuck
#338
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Doesn't look like it to anyone but you.

You're speaking for everyone now?

Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

lol I will when you do.

Talk is cheap
 
L Gilbert
+1
#339
Again, why say that it's a horrendous cost then?

I posted the stats of how many are, in fact, in said wrecks. And you even started "extrapolating" from the stats. Really, how do you think those drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 died if they weren't in wrecks?

But you've never seen any, so I guess that means that there never were any wrecks those drivers were in, right?
 
Cannuck
#340
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Again, why say that it's a horrendous cost then?

I haven't said it is a horrendous cost. You take the comment out of context.
Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by SLM

I'd also support a call for absolutely zero blood alcohol levels too. No one has a right to drink, no one has a right to drive. No one should have a right to do them together in any capacity.
...and nobody has the right to make other Canadians pay the horrendous legal costs to deal with a non-problem just because they have an issue with it.

I know you think the statement suggests I think the costs are horrendous and that it is a non-problem but that is only because you ignore the rest of the thread. I've said repeatedly that I do not know the costs nor the extent of the problem. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
 
L Gilbert
+1
#341
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I haven't said it is a horrendous cost. You take the comment out of context.

What was the context?

Again, I posted the stats of how many are, in fact, in said wrecks. And you even started "extrapolating" from the stats. Really, how do you think those drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 died if they weren't in wrecks?
 
Cannuck
#342
I've said repeatedly that I do not know the costs nor the extent of the problem. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
 
JLM
+1
#343
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Why say that it's a horrendous cost then?

Dance around all you like. The implication of what all your posts in this thread that are actually related to the topic are saying is that you've reached a conclusion and even less subtle after you started "extrapolating" from the stat I posted.

Yet I posted the stats of how many are, in fact, in said wrecks. And you even started "extrapolating" from the stats. Really, how do you think those drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 died if they weren't in wrecks?

Keep dancing.

lol Look, you poor, dumb ****wit, hand me all the reds you like. It will not make me stop pointing out that you are only making yourself look like a fool.

Don't despair Les, one of the downsides of being a twit, is they don't have enough f**Kin' brains to recognize their situation. Out of kindness someone should medicate him so he doesn't try to do strenuous exercise like thinking! -
 
L Gilbert
#344
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Because they lump all impaired drivers together. I see no reason to believe, given my own personal experience, that a driver at 0.08 is the same risk as a driver at 0.16. As I've said, I could be wrong but I haven't seen any statistical data that would contradict my own personal experience. I think I already posted that, as a firefighter, I've been to some nasty DD wrecks. I'd bet 6 months of paychecks that not a single one involved a driver under 0.10

Again, I posted the stats of how many are, in fact, in said wrecks. And you even started "extrapolating" from the stats. Really, how do you think those drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 died if they weren't in wrecks? Just because you haven't seen any of those wrecks, does not mean there weren't any. Jeez
Quote:

I've said repeatedly that I do not know the costs nor the extent of the problem. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Told you, I understand that that is what you are saying. I don't blieve you are not biased, though. I think you think that anything under 0.01 is too expensive regardless of the costs.
 
JLM
+1
#345
I think this thread has pretty well run its course and even one death resulting from impaired driving is too many and whatever is necessary to prevent it should be done. End of discussion (as far as I'm concerned)
 
Cannuck
#346
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Again, I posted the stats of how many are, in fact, in said wrecks. And you even started "extrapolating" from the stats. Really, how do you think those drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 died if they weren't in wrecks? Just because you haven't seen any of those wrecks, does not mean there weren't any. Jeez
Told you, I understand that that is what you are saying. I don't blieve you are not biased, though. I think you think that anything under 0.01 is too expensive regardless of the costs.

I've said repeatedly that I do not know the costs nor the extent of the problem. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
 
lone wolf
+2
#347
Quibbling makes lawyers rich. Starve a shyster. Go zero.
 
DaSleeper
+4
#348
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I think this thread has pretty well run its course and even one death resulting from impaired driving is too many and whatever is necessary to prevent it should be done. End of discussion (as far as I'm concerned)

You know...for a guy who keeps saying that he doesn't know....he sure can't STFU....He's fast replacing Sir Joe as the motor mouth of the forum....

And the dance goes on....Waiting for the red.....
 
JLM
+3
#349
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

You know...for a guy who keeps saying that he doesn't know....he sure can't STFU....He's fast replacing Sir Joe as the motor mouth of the forum....

And the dance goes on....Waiting for the red.....

For sure and for a guy who claims he doesn't know he seems to think he knows enough to put everyone else down! -
 
Goober
#350
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

LOL...I'm not the one looking like a fool. I've explained my point of view too many times to count. If you are unable to grasp it, perhaps this thread is just a little over your head and you should run along.

Why do you feel you have to respond with childish name calling?

Edit
Last edited by Goober; Dec 2nd, 2012 at 08:08 PM..
 
Locutus
#351
ffs.
 
Cannuck
#352
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Edit

Good job
 
Goober
#353
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Good job

Yep- Got sucked in and realized why.
 
DaSleeper
+2
#354
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

For sure and for a guy who claims he doesn't know he seems to think he knows enough to put everyone else down! -

Un ti-Jos connaissant
 
shadowshiv
#355
Enough with the back and forth bickering! It's very annoying. Stick to the topic WITHOUT attacking other forum members.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#356
So outlining the issue:
I posted the stats the gov't has that says about 5% of drunk drivers that die in crashes are between 0.05 and 0.08. The gov't says around 30 to 35% of impaired drivers die in crashes (2000 to 2006 stats). The last year of gov't assesment I could find (2009), there were about 85,000 cases of impaired driving in the books. About 1/3 of those are caused by teens and 20+.
Cannuck calculates that about 35 or 40 drivers who drive with BAC of between 0.05 and 0.08 die in crashes. The stat leaves out those drivers that are merely injured as well as passengers and pedestrians and their deaths and injuries, property damage, and whatever else may be pertinent. The government thinks crashes caused by drunk drivers alone costs about $10.6 billion per year. (Smashed: A Sober Look at Drinking and Driving - Transport Canada ). Can't find anything saying how much is attributable to those drivers that are only mildly drunk (below say 0.10 ). I'm also thinking that some drunk drivers were not drunk the same night they'd been drinking but had slept off some of their impairment and still blew over in the morning.

IMO, 0.05 (when driving abilities, like judgement and motor skills, become impaired) is a reasonable limit and I get the impression that the money spent catching and convicting those under 0.01 is a small fraction of the total costs and well worth that small fraction considering the amount of deaths, possibles injuries and the amount of damage done.

Relative likelihood of dying in a crash relative to age and BAC:
 

Similar Threads

69
B.C.s new drunk driving laws
by JLM | Sep 25th, 2010
57
Drunk driving laws
by Kreskin | May 9th, 2010
28
Drunk Driving Program Goes Too Far?
by karrie | Jun 12th, 2008