If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AL.com)   Alabama man wants to reclaim the 40 beer kegs stolen from his small brewery after he tracks down thieves and presents their driver's licenses, tags and addresses to police. Police response, *crickets*   (blog.al.com) divider line 271
    More: Stupid, Alabama Man, Avondale, Alabama, brewery, driver's licenses, bad for business, historic buildings, accident report  
•       •       •

24640 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2011 at 5:55 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



271 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-14 07:14:26 PM
Link (new window)

$100,000 in damages from trying to text and trying to corral a pet.....sober

Granted it's Canada, so the laws aren't 1:1. They're actually stricter. You know what this girl got charged with: careless driving.
 
2011-06-14 09:01:22 PM

TsukasaK: CruiserTwelve: Finally, if you think that calling someone "pompous and full of shiat" is a valid debate tactic, our conversation is over.

You've been demonstrated twice, in this thread alone, to be full of shiat. Namely, misusing statistics (NHTSA defines alcohol-related traffic fatality as "any and all vehicular (including bicycle and motorcycle) accidents in which any alcohol has been consumed, or believed to have been consumed, by the driver, a passenger or a pedestrian associated with the accident."

There's no need to be drunk to count. There's no need to be driving to count.),

And then, on top of that, making the absurd claim that the same alcohol level will affect everyone the same.

Whether or not you are pompous is left as an exercise to the reader.


You are an idiot completely incapable of reading a simple chart. Chart 1: "Persons Killed, by STATE and Highest Driver Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) in Crash".

Notice your footnote is not present, because these are not the same statistics as the overall alcohol-related fatality rate that you're attempting to confuse it with. It's right there in farking black and white, a driver-over-.08 column, I'm not even sure that NHTSA collects "alcohol-related" statistics anymore because I can't find them for recent years, but here's 2005 with both columns (new window). But you're a herpderp troll that ignores the part that agrees with C12 ("Nationally, 12.8% of all drivers involved in fatal accidents during 2001 are known to have been intoxicated according to the blood alcohol concentration (BAC laws) of their state.") and dives straight for the MADD-bashing line ("The higher number (about 40%) commonly reported in the press refers to accidents defined as alcohol-related as estimated (not measured) by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration"). Get a clue and read your own sources.
 
2011-06-14 10:52:23 PM

CruiserTwelve: So tell me, how do you think alcohol affects inattention? Does it make a person more attentive or less attentive? Is an inattentive person more or less likely to be involved in an accident?

What you are advocating is allowing people to engage in a behavior that greatly increases the probability that they will cause death or serious injury, but not punishing them until that behavior actually causes such death or injury. That is, not penalizing them until it's too late. You'll never, ever get me to agree with such nonsensical reasoning. I can't believe I'm even having this debate.


Well, then, if inattention is such a problem, why not address it entirely and not piecemeal? Do you advocate allowing passengers? If so, then, by your reasoning, you are advocating allowing people to engage in a behavior that greatly increases the probability that they will cause death or serious injury, but not punishing them until that behavior actually causes such death or injury. That is, not penalizing them until it's too late. I expect you to come out in writing with your support for criminalizing passengers in cars. And eating in cars. And driving after taking cold medicine. And talking on any kind of phone, hands-free or handset. And putting on makeup. And being angry. And being very sad. And being very frustrated. And being stressed. And having a lot on your mind. ALL OF THESE THINGS "greatly increase the probability that [someone] will cause death or serious injury." Why are they not all criminalized? Why are you not pushing for their criminalization? Why is your focus on alcohol specifically? Statistically, which is more likely? That you'll be killed by a drunk driver, or that you'll be killed by a sober, inattentive driver? You still have yet to explain why being killed by a drunk driver is worse than being killed by a sober driver. I fully expect you to dodge the question again, seeing as how you can't answer it. It's completely irrational. I'm SO GLAD that someone with your grasp of logic and reason has the power to completely fark up my life or kill me for any reason or no reason and have very little chance of facing any repercussions for it.
 
2011-06-14 11:14:47 PM

untaken_name: You still have yet to explain why being killed by a drunk driver is worse than being killed by a sober driver. I fully expect you to dodge the question again, seeing as how you can't answer it.


That's a stupid question with an obvious answer, but I'll state the obvious for your benefit.

There is no difference between being killed by a sober driver and a drunk driver. No difference at all. However, a drunk driver is far more likely to kill you in a car accident, and drunk driving accidents are 100% preventable, whereas sober driving accidents are not.
 
2011-06-14 11:20:36 PM

CruiserTwelve: untaken_name: You still have yet to explain why being killed by a drunk driver is worse than being killed by a sober driver. I fully expect you to dodge the question again, seeing as how you can't answer it.

That's a stupid question with an obvious answer, but I'll state the obvious for your benefit.

There is no difference between being killed by a sober driver and a drunk driver. No difference at all. However, a drunk driver is far more likely to kill you in a car accident, and drunk driving accidents are 100% preventable, whereas sober driving accidents are not.


Accidents stemming from cell phone usage and flipping the radio dial are 100% avoidable.
 
2011-06-14 11:36:39 PM

redmid17: CruiserTwelve: untaken_name: You still have yet to explain why being killed by a drunk driver is worse than being killed by a sober driver. I fully expect you to dodge the question again, seeing as how you can't answer it.

That's a stupid question with an obvious answer, but I'll state the obvious for your benefit.

There is no difference between being killed by a sober driver and a drunk driver. No difference at all. However, a drunk driver is far more likely to kill you in a car accident, and drunk driving accidents are 100% preventable, whereas sober driving accidents are not.

Accidents stemming from cell phone usage and flipping the radio dial are 100% avoidable.


Accidents stemming from driving are 100% preventable.

Actually, accidents from living are too.
 
2011-06-14 11:42:42 PM

Benjimin_Dover: redmid17: CruiserTwelve: untaken_name: You still have yet to explain why being killed by a drunk driver is worse than being killed by a sober driver. I fully expect you to dodge the question again, seeing as how you can't answer it.

That's a stupid question with an obvious answer, but I'll state the obvious for your benefit.

There is no difference between being killed by a sober driver and a drunk driver. No difference at all. However, a drunk driver is far more likely to kill you in a car accident, and drunk driving accidents are 100% preventable, whereas sober driving accidents are not.

Accidents stemming from cell phone usage and flipping the radio dial are 100% avoidable.

Accidents stemming from driving are 100% preventable.

Actually, accidents from living are too.


Dont be a farking pedant. Nothing about driving requires using a cell phone or changing the radio while in motion. OTOH, a lot of people have to drive to work and a million other places. My scenarios are complete realistic and you're just being a farking moron.
 
2011-06-14 11:45:47 PM

redmid17: Benjimin_Dover: redmid17: CruiserTwelve: untaken_name: You still have yet to explain why being killed by a drunk driver is worse than being killed by a sober driver. I fully expect you to dodge the question again, seeing as how you can't answer it.

That's a stupid question with an obvious answer, but I'll state the obvious for your benefit.

There is no difference between being killed by a sober driver and a drunk driver. No difference at all. However, a drunk driver is far more likely to kill you in a car accident, and drunk driving accidents are 100% preventable, whereas sober driving accidents are not.

Accidents stemming from cell phone usage and flipping the radio dial are 100% avoidable.

Accidents stemming from driving are 100% preventable.

Actually, accidents from living are too.

Dont be a farking pedant. Nothing about driving requires using a cell phone or changing the radio while in motion. OTOH, a lot of people have to drive to work and a million other places. My scenarios are complete realistic and you're just being a farking moron.


Thank you. May I have another?
 
2011-06-14 11:48:03 PM

Benjimin_Dover: redmid17: Benjimin_Dover: redmid17: CruiserTwelve: untaken_name: You still have yet to explain why being killed by a drunk driver is worse than being killed by a sober driver. I fully expect you to dodge the question again, seeing as how you can't answer it.

That's a stupid question with an obvious answer, but I'll state the obvious for your benefit.

There is no difference between being killed by a sober driver and a drunk driver. No difference at all. However, a drunk driver is far more likely to kill you in a car accident, and drunk driving accidents are 100% preventable, whereas sober driving accidents are not.

Accidents stemming from cell phone usage and flipping the radio dial are 100% avoidable.

Accidents stemming from driving are 100% preventable.

Actually, accidents from living are too.

Dont be a farking pedant. Nothing about driving requires using a cell phone or changing the radio while in motion. OTOH, a lot of people have to drive to work and a million other places. My scenarios are complete realistic and you're just being a farking moron.

Thank you. May I have another?


I left my pledge paddle to my fraternity son, so no you cannot.
i11.tinypic.com
 
2011-06-15 08:08:11 AM

CruiserTwelve: drunk driving accidents are 100% preventable


You keep saying that. How can that be? Accident involving sober drivers happen all the time. Are you saying that it's impossible for a drunk driver to encounter a situation that s/he couldn't handle while sober?
 
2011-06-15 09:51:51 AM

Babwa Wawa: You keep saying that. How can that be? Accident involving sober drivers happen all the time. Are you saying that it's impossible for a drunk driver to encounter a situation that s/he couldn't handle while sober?


Simple. If people didn't drive drunk, there would be no accidents caused by drunk drivers.
 
2011-06-15 10:14:30 AM

CruiserTwelve: Simple. If people didn't drive drunk, there would be no accidents caused by drunk drivers.


I'm sorry, but that's absurd and not a real argument. If people didn't drive cars, there would be no car accidents.

There's a natural background rate of accidents, fatal and otherwise. There's also a rate of accidents attributable to alcohol. The difference between the two is what's important.

If you want to be taken seriously, you should make serious points and avoid quoting meaningless cliches.
 
2011-06-15 12:41:10 PM

Babwa Wawa: I'm sorry, but that's absurd and not a real argument. If people didn't drive cars, there would be no car accidents.


Actually, it's not at all. Car accidents aren't going away. That's a given. People who drink alcohol, especially in excess of their ability to metabolize it, and then drive cause some of those accidents due to being drunk. If nobody drank and then drove a vehicle, none of those accidents would be due to drivers being impaired by alcohol. That's not absurd. It would, however, shut off a huge amount of local revenue streams. I'm OK with this.
 
2011-06-15 01:12:02 PM

Babwa Wawa: CruiserTwelve: Simple. If people didn't drive drunk, there would be no accidents caused by drunk drivers.

I'm sorry, but that's absurd and not a real argument. If people didn't drive cars, there would be no car accidents.

There's a natural background rate of accidents, fatal and otherwise. There's also a rate of accidents attributable to alcohol. The difference between the two is what's important.

If you want to be taken seriously, you should make serious points and avoid quoting meaningless cliches.


Do you think it's reasonable to outlaw driving? Of course not. But it is reasonable to outlaw a behavior that has been proven to cause accidents and to increase the severity of accidents.
 
2011-06-15 01:26:27 PM

bunner: Actually, it's not at all. Car accidents aren't going away. That's a given. People who drink alcohol, especially in excess of their ability to metabolize it, and then drive cause some of those accidents due to being drunk. If nobody drank and then drove a vehicle, none of those accidents would be due to drivers being impaired by alcohol. That's not absurd. It would, however, shut off a huge amount of local revenue streams. I'm OK with this.


Look, if you want to have a rational discussion about the effect of DUI enforcement on driving fatalities, you can't include meaningless, empty, trite cliches in the discussion.

In the last twenty years, we've decreased the BAC threshold, and increased penalties. We've seen a 27% decrease in the number of road fatalities involving drivers with BAC .08 and above. That seems wonderful, until you see that overall road fatalities have decreased by an identical amount due to seat belt use, safer cars, and safer road construction. It's safe to say that the increased awareness and enforcement may get some drunks off the road, but by and large these are not the drunks that kill people.

The fact is that the road fatalities are generally caused by drivers very far over .08, and who are not deterred by increased penalties or decreased thresholds. So criminalizing a greater percentage of the citizenry in the hopeless pursuit of eliminating all drunk driving is pretty senseless, when it doesn't actually make the roads safer in any meaningful way.
 
2011-06-15 01:30:28 PM

CruiserTwelve: Do you think it's reasonable to outlaw driving? Of course not. But it is reasonable to outlaw a behavior that has been proven to cause accidents and to increase the severity of accidents.


If you believe that I'm for legalizing drunk driving, you're wrong (I've not said that anywhere).

What I'm saying that the decreased thresholds and increased penalties over the last two decades has had no measurable effect on road safety, and has come at a great burden to law enforcement, the court system, and the citizenry.
 
2011-06-15 01:34:42 PM

Babwa Wawa: CruiserTwelve: Do you think it's reasonable to outlaw driving? Of course not. But it is reasonable to outlaw a behavior that has been proven to cause accidents and to increase the severity of accidents.

If you believe that I'm for legalizing drunk driving, you're wrong (I've not said that anywhere).

What I'm saying that the decreased thresholds and increased penalties over the last two decades has had no measurable effect on road safety, and has come at a great burden to law enforcement, the court system, and the citizenry.


We also have to sit through all those annoying "Drink Responsibly" lines at the end of every booze ad. That's really annoying.
 
2011-06-15 05:31:42 PM

Babwa Wawa: The fact is that the road fatalities are generally caused by drivers very far over .08, and who are not deterred by increased penalties or decreased thresholds. So criminalizing a greater percentage of the citizenry in the hopeless pursuit of eliminating all drunk driving is pretty senseless, when it doesn't actually make the roads safer in any meaningful way.


I agree.

Which is why I said that pulling the licenses and vehicle access for known fu*kups who drive hammered is more effective.

Revenue is the goal, sadly.

But that also wont get this weeks crop of hooch monkeys off of the roads before they plow into a minivan full of nuns. "Ya feel me?
 
2011-06-15 05:34:08 PM

Babwa Wawa: Look, if you want to have a rational discussion about the effect of DUI enforcement on driving fatalities, you can't include meaningless, empty, trite cliches in the discussion.


Objective, easily, mathematically parsed matters of fact are now trite clichès? Huh.
 
2011-06-15 09:14:31 PM

bunner: Objective, easily, mathematically parsed matters of fact are now trite clichès? Huh.


The idea that we can eliminate all drunk driving with trite statements like "every drunk driving accident is 100% preventable" is as absurd as the idea that we can prevent people from doing drugs, or any other potentially harmful activity for that matter.

bunner: Revenue is the goal, sadly.


I don't really agree with you there.

DUI arrests takes cops a long time - field sobriety tests, breathalyzers, booking, fingerprinting, statements, transport, district attorney time, potentially court time. That's a lot of money, and a lot of time the officer is off the streets and dealing with the offender. The fine is probably a wash - it might pay for the state's costs. The only way I see it as a revenue winner for the state is by doing it at scale - DUI checkpoints, paddy wagons, and so forth.

What motivates police to do DUI arrests is the numbers game. Police administrators want to see DUI arrests so they can report that they're "Cracking down on drunk drivers". It looks good for the DA come reelection time.

Traffic offenses are different. If a police officer pops you for a $100 or $200 ticket for maybe a 15-30 minutes of total effort, that's a net revenue gain. And why spend the quarter man hour when you can do it with cameras?
 
2011-06-15 09:32:45 PM

Babwa Wawa: DUI arrests takes cops a long time - field sobriety tests, breathalyzers, booking, fingerprinting, statements, transport, district attorney time, potentially court time. That's a lot of money, and a lot of time the officer is off the streets and dealing with the offender. The fine is probably a wash - it might pay for the state's costs. The only way I see it as a revenue winner for the state is by doing it at scale - DUI checkpoints, paddy wagons, and so forth.


Court costs, public defenders get work, judges and DAs look good, yeah, drunk school, astoundingly high fines, enhances revenue at renewal time, reinstatement fees and of course, that ever loving SR-22 that the insurance companies love so well. It's a lot of downstream revenue spread across a lot of public and private sectors. and 3 minutes of "touch your nose, breathe into this" and dropping them off at the station for booking isn't all that time consuming or expensive. Now, looking for stolen property is time consuming and expensive and has pretty much no return. They don't do that anymore.
 
Displayed 21 of 271 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report