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

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Take it from a firefighter, sprinklers DO NOT reduce risk to zero. For instance, you have a grease fire or a heating fuel fire, the water will spread the fire. Your best bet in grease fires is drychem, foam, or straight CO2. Another instance, sprinkler water cannot reach fires inside walls ceilings, etc. They can help an awful lot minimizing effects of fire and lowering insurance premiums. So yeah, they are a no-brainer, IMO.

I'm a firefighter as well. fatality rates in sprinklered buildings is less than 2 per 1000 fires. That number takes into account buildings without automatic sprinklers and people that were killed by other means (ie: falling down stairs while trying to get out, heart attack).

If you want to get technical, there is no such thing as zero risk but automatic sprinkler systems are as close as they come.

How many homeowners do you know have a sprinkler system in their house. And how many do not.

Not too many. Hollywood has done a disservice to the sprinkler service.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
I have no idea why you cannot grasp that more people are killed by Drunk Drivers than are murdered in Canada- Then add the 10's of billions in other costs.
What about the above can you not grasp.

I can grasp that. I'm not talking about all drunk drivers. I'm talking about people with a BAC under 0.10.

Nah. You've been doing more than that.

Nope, maybe you start at the beginning and work your way through
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
I'm a firefighter as well. fatality rates in sprinklered buildings is less than 2 per 1000 fires. That number takes into account buildings without automatic sprinklers and people that were killed by other means (ie: falling down stairs while trying to get out, heart attack).

If you want to get technical, there is no such thing as zero risk but automatic sprinkler systems are as close as they come.
Well, then why say the risk is 0 if you are a firefighter and know better?

Nope, maybe you start at the beginning and work your way through
Yeah, you have, kid. Otherwise you wouldn't have been ignoring factors, wouldn't have been introducing irrelevant issues like fires in houses, etc.

Anybody getting tired of this thread? -:)
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/fun-jokes/108511-help-feed-troll.html
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Anybody getting tired of this thread? -:)

Actually JLM, you and I are the only two making any sense. While I disagree with your idea that money is no object, at least it is a rebuttal to my position. If you strip away all of the side issues that people like to dwell on, my point is rather simple

A - I don't know how big of a problem drivers between 0.05 and 0.10 are on the road (because they get lumped in with all DD stats.

B - I don't know how much public resources go into dealing with this problem of drivers between 0.05 and 0.10

C - I think we should know these things so the response is on par with the situation.

After 200 plus posts, you are the only one that has said anything in response to these points that makes any sense. As I said, I disagree with you but I can only say well done.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
After 200 plus posts, you are the only one that has said anything in response to these points that makes any sense. As I said, I disagree with you but I can only say well done.

After 300+ post.. this is the biggest pile of bullcrap.................most of it from the same source....
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
How about some real wrecks be outfitted with some realistic VR hardware (6DOF) and put everybody through the test under realistic conditions where the driver gets plastered and the video replay shows him just how ****ed he really is when confronted with simulated hazards based on real accident where lives were lost. Convicted get to do it once a week and they supply the booze or the VR place can do the mini bar thing at mini bar prices. In the long run insurance claims might go down in that area and lives saved and disabilities prevented.

It's not like he's going to miss any games....
Make his whole line have to attend the same counseling sessions then, see how that works for him.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
So you should get a multitude of reds for not sticking to the topic. :)

I repeat: you haven't come up with a decent argument as to why drivers under the influence should be able to drive after 0.05...

Yes I have, if the cost of dealing with the problem outweighs the costs of not dealing with the problem. If you did as I suggested and read the entire thread, you would see that I'm not saying people should be allowed to drive over 0.50 BAC. It all depends on how much of a risk they are and I have seen no good data on that.

Post #323 sums up my position nicely and neither you, JLM or Goober have made any attempt to argue against that position


you haven't answered but one or two of my questions regarding the topic

Probably because most of them aren't relevant. You are actually asking me to post research that I have said I can't find and because I can't find it I have chosen my position as spelled out in post 323.

This is no different than if I were to say, I've seen no evidence that there is a god so I'm concerned about giving tax breaks to churches and you asking me to post research that there is no god.

and you haven't posted any research of your own.

Post 204. Again, you should read the entire thread before you make blanket statements like that. You make yourself look foolish. You get upset when I point it out. You start attacking me personally and acting childish and I give you a red. It's a vicious circle. Let's turn it into a virtuous circle.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Yes I have, if the cost of dealing with the problem outweighs the costs of not dealing with the problem.
And one of the questions you avoided answering was wghat portion of the costs are related to people between 0.05 and 0,08.
If you can't answer that then you jhave no justification for saying it's too much.
If you did as I suggested and read the entire thread, you would see that I'm not saying people should be allowed to drive over 0.50 BAC. It all depends on how much of a risk they are and I have seen no good data on that.
And for about the 6th time, you reached a conclusion that too much is spent without having a basis for that conclusion. You openly admit to not knowing what is spent.

Post #323 sums up my position nicely and neither you, JLM or Goober have made any attempt to argue against that position
Because your premise is simply arbitrary.

-
Probably because most of them aren't relevant. You are actually asking me to post research that I have said I can't find and because I can't find it I have chosen my position as spelled out in post 323.
Right. You don't know how much is spent so it must be too much.

This is no different than if I were to say, I've seen no evidence that there is a god so I'm concerned about giving tax breaks to churches and you asking me to post research that there is no god.
lol Huge difference. I showed you evidence that over 0.05 impairs judgement and motor skills. You argued that the money spent on that is too much. I said that's a ridiculous statement because you don't know how much is spent, let alone how much is too much.
Besides, gods are at best a maybe. Costs, impaired drivers, etc. are tangible.

Post 204. Again, you should read the entire thread before you make blanket statements like that. You make yourself look foolish. You get upset when I point it out. You start attacking me personally and acting childish and I give you a red. It's a vicious circle. Let's turn it into a virtuous circle.
Sorry. But after several explanations in different ways, you cannot seem to grasp that not knowing the costs is not sufficient or rational reason for reaching your conclusion that it costs too much.
You make yourself look foolish.
Now look who's insulting and attacking character.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
And one of the questions you avoided answering was wghat portion of the costs are related to people between 0.05 and 0,08.

I don't know. I've said I don't know. I'm really not sure how many times I can say it so you understand it.

If you can't answer that then you jhave no justification for saying it's too much.

I haven't said it's too much. I don't know. I've said I don't know. I'm really not sure how many times I can say it so you understand it.

And for about the 6th time, you reached a conclusion that too much is spent without having a basis for that conclusion. You openly admit to not knowing what is spent.

No I haven't. I don't know. I've said I don't know. I'm really not sure how many times I can say it so you understand it.


-Right. You don't know how much is spent so it must be too much.

No I haven't. I don't know. I've said I don't know. I'm really not sure how many times I can say it so you understand it.



lol Huge difference. I showed you evidence that over 0.05 impairs judgement and motor skills.

I haven't argued that it doesn't. What I've said is that I haven't seen any data that shows that that necessarily leads to higher accidents and fatalities or if they are higher, to what extent they are higher.


You argued that the money spent on that is too much.

No I haven't. I don't know. I've said I don't know. I'm really not sure how many times I can say it so you understand it.

I said that's a ridiculous statement because you don't know how much is spent,

Yes, it would be a ridiculous statement if I made it.

Besides, gods are at best a maybe. Costs, impaired drivers, etc. are tangible.

Yes they are. Unfortunately most of the stats lump all BAC's over 0.5 together as "impaired drivers"

Sorry. But after several explanations in different ways, you cannot seem to grasp that not knowing the costs is not sufficient or rational reason for reaching your conclusion that it costs too much.

Haven't said that. I've said I don't know. I'm really not sure how many times I can say it so you understand it.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
29,238
11,041
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Oh God Guys...This Thread is titled:

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

I don't believe the topic has anything to do with Reds or Greens or
Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down or the constant & chronic complaining
about the same. It's so old, & derails so many threads.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Here Les, I've quoted post 323 because it's obviously too difficult for you to scroll back.

A - I don't know how big of a problem drivers between 0.05 and 0.10 are on the road (because they get lumped in with all DD stats.

B - I don't know how much public resources go into dealing with this problem of drivers between 0.05 and 0.10

C - I think we should know these things so the response is on par with the situation.