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
Driving ban for life after DUI? Drunk driving - from it is OK to execution, ect....
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
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
Then you should look for accidents caused by unpaired drivers with a BAC at or under 0.10
Actually I'm not convinced that drivers with 0.16 are that much more dangerous, people with lower amounts aren't aware of the hazards of the situation whereas guys who are sh*t faced know they are a hazard and often slow right down and close one eye.-
Actually I'm not convinced that drivers with 0.16 are that much more dangerous, people with lower amounts aren't aware of the hazards of the situation whereas guys who are sh*t faced know they are a hazard and often slow right down and close one eye.-
Most police will not lay charges when the BAC is at 0.10 or lower- Approx 1/3rd of the impaired cases are won by the defendant- if you can afford a good lawyer and a substantial cost-
Study after study has shown impairment is significant at 0.08
At risk of sounding boring I don't think people should be driving after consuming ANY amount especially upon observing a good 1/3 of the drivers on the road aren't fit to drive cold sober. An idiot with one or two drinks is lethal.
If it really is a safety issue, why not change the labour standards so shift workers get more days off between shift changes (Shift work cause sleep deprivation and workers impairment can be considered equivalent to a BAC of at least 0.08 ). What about farm labourers that drive tandems 24 hours a day during harvest.
The reason is that it would cost too much money. Our society is willing to take the risk.
The reason is that it would cost too much money. Our society is willing to take the risk.
Last edited:
Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction
I'm thinking I might agree somewhat with you on this. If I'm not mistaken (and I might be) I thought I read somewhere that most of the fatalities/DUI accidents - whatever you want to call them, involve individuals who BAC are much higher than .08.
I also have thought about a commercial I've seen on TV where it shows glasses of beer and how after 1 beer the vision is somewhat distorted, after 2 it's worse, 3 even more so...etc. I have found that commercial disingenuious because while I'm not a big drinker, I have had 1 beer and my eyesight has not been affected at all to the extent portrayed on the commercial. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have realized this which means people are less likely to take the message to heart because it's not accurate. I can't remember who sponsors the ad - perhaps MADD but it's one of the reasons why I think there may be something said about their messaging.
Perhaps a tea totteling (toddeling??) individual who has never had a drink in their life would likely be affected by 1 beer, but the "average" individual who has a dirnk or 2 or 3 a week would not be so affected in my humble opinion. Thats not to say that I agree that you should be drinking and driving - but some common sense needs to become part of the discussion as well.
JMO
I'm thinking I might agree somewhat with you on this. If I'm not mistaken (and I might be) I thought I read somewhere that most of the fatalities/DUI accidents - whatever you want to call them, involve individuals who BAC are much higher than .08.
I also have thought about a commercial I've seen on TV where it shows glasses of beer and how after 1 beer the vision is somewhat distorted, after 2 it's worse, 3 even more so...etc. I have found that commercial disingenuious because while I'm not a big drinker, I have had 1 beer and my eyesight has not been affected at all to the extent portrayed on the commercial. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have realized this which means people are less likely to take the message to heart because it's not accurate. I can't remember who sponsors the ad - perhaps MADD but it's one of the reasons why I think there may be something said about their messaging.
Perhaps a tea totteling (toddeling??) individual who has never had a drink in their life would likely be affected by 1 beer, but the "average" individual who has a dirnk or 2 or 3 a week would not be so affected in my humble opinion. Thats not to say that I agree that you should be drinking and driving - but some common sense needs to become part of the discussion as well.
JMO
With all your expounding on here and your extensive knowledge about everything, I thought you might have enough cells to detect a little tongue in cheek.
CDC Data & Statistics | Feature: Insufficient Sleep Is a Public Health Epidemic
Sleep And Coping With Shift Work - Tips and Advice - Bupa
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
That is your interpretation. It is wrong.
I'm trying to. The topic is DWI not silly name calling. Why can't you stick to the topic?
Because you're just regurgitating the same nonsense that has already been replied to. Try to come up with something new.
Doesn't look like it to anyone but you.
lol I will when you do.
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?
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?
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?
I haven't said it is a horrendous cost. You take the comment out of context.
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?