The average blood alcohol level was .178 - or more than twice the legal limit.

My recollection is the national average is around .16%. Good job, Arizona, but we knew you had it in you.

lol

Great headline, submitter.

Yeah! strike terror in the hearts of the American driver. Drinking or not.

I bet states are just rubbing their hands in anticipation for all the revenue dui's will generate for them.

Happy Holidays everyone!

FTA: Of the 52 people taken into custody, nine had been arrested before for DUI.

Was she one of them?

Solution is simple; get high. Can't blow over .08 with no alcohol in your system.

/Not srs.

hahahaha, good one subby

Let me walk home in 1996. Learned my lesson.

You know what? fark em'.

Every drunk I've encountered in my 8 years of doing this has always insisted they were OK to drive, even after their car was wrapped around a tree/human being.

Okay, thirty minutes later and I'm still laughing at the headline.

Well done.

untaken_name: BronyMedic: You know what? fark em'.

Every drunk I've encountered in my 8 years of doing this has always insisted they were OK to drive, even after their car was wrapped around a tree/human being.

And the sober people you've encountered, did they claim that they, as well, were perfectly capable drivers, even after their car was wrapped around a tree/human being? Do you believe that sober drivers who cause accidents should never be allowed to drive again?

No, I don't think that a sober driver, who acted with due dilligance and was placed in an unfortunate situation which resulted in an accident, should not be allowed to drive again.

But then again, we're not talking about that, are we?

Sober drivers didn't willingly ingest an excess of a substance which alters their response time and ability to make rational, time-critical decisions, and lowers the inhibition to perform acts which threaten the lives of others, and then make the decision to get behind the wheel of a one to one and a half ton missile moving at 65 miles per hour, while full aware of the dangers that drinking and driving poses.

Strange how sober drivers don't need to have white knights who choose to defend their irresponsable, and highly selfish decision to others.

Oh, you were actually expecting me to play into your attempt at begging the question, weren't you?

untaken_name: So, basically, you don't think that a very small percentage of sober people who cause accidents should be barred from driving again. Ok. What about the VAST majority of sober drivers who cause accidents?
Distracted drivers are the #1 cause of traffic accidents. (new window)

Argument from irrelevance is an argument from irrelevance. Again. I'll type this in bold since you seem to be incapable of either intellectual honesty, or making a topical argument. We are not discussing sober drivers. We are talking about persons who have made a cognizant decision to willingly ingest mind altering substances, and then operate a moving vehicle.

I think only someone with a particular axe to grind would ever label a distracted driver (the most likely type of sober driver to be involved in an accident) as "a sober driver, who acted with due dilligance[sic] and was placed in an unfortunate situation which resulted in an accident".

No. I pointed out it was a false equivilency, and a red herring. We aren't talking about distracted driving. We're talking about entirely preventable accidents caused by individuals who are intoxicated behind the wheel. You're the one trying to make this about something else.

Also, I will continue to purposfully misspell words, since it seems to get you giddy.

And as far as an agenda? You are passionately defending the actions of people who willingly get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle while not in the mental capacity to operate it due to a willing ingestion of mild altering substances. You shouldn't be talking about an agenda, or an axe.

Do you really think your bias isn't apparent to anyone with reasoning skills?

Man, it's almost as if you're giving me the arguments to use against you.

No, we're certainly NOT talking about drivers who "acted with due diligence and were placed in an unfortunate situation", we're talking about drivers who CAUSE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.

Yes. We're talking about drivers who have ingested enough alcohol for it to drastically affect their decision making and reactionary skills, and willingly get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. Why are you trying to change the subject? Please provide me with a moral, ethical, or legal justification for doing this, when it places the lives of those around you at far more risk than you would be sober.

No, that's sort of implied by the word "sober". However, they often DO willingly fail to pay attention to the road which renders their response time immaterial and they also make the decision to get behind the wheel of a half ton missile and sometimes they move it at OVER 65 mile per hour, which they are fully aware (or should be, if they are licensed drivers) that excess speed is the number one factor in all collisions. But you completely excuse all of them, while simultaneously demonizing anyone who had a beer or two (or more) before getting behind the wheel. I wonder why that is....oh, right, because you're super biased.


Actually, I never said anything about a beer or two. Now you're putting words in my mouth. Considering the average beer that a person ingests will affect the BAC of an adult male by approximately 0.02 to 0.04 depending on weight, and the liver can metabolize that much alcohol in one hour, ingesting a beer or two will not affect someone that much.

In addition to this, unless the laws have changed recently, a first-time DUI does not result in a loss of license. Repetitive DUIs do.

Now why would you put words in my mouth and then make an irrelevant arguement to try to distract from that?

The funny thing is, I never attempted to defend or excuse distracted driving. Hell, I never mentioned it. That was an entire straw man constructed to argue against by yourself. The funny thing is, I agree that someone who makes childish, stupid decisions and endangers others should be restricted from, or lose their license after repeated behavior.

Even stranger that despite the fact that YOU say they don't need white-knighting, you still come along and white-knight them anyway. So you're doing something that you claim is not needed...why would you do that? Oh, right. Bias again.

Actually, no, no I didn't. You're more than welcome to quote where I did, though, if you can find time between your self-righteous rant here.

I'm not defending drunk driving - I'm impugning "sober driving". There's a pretty large difference there, but I don't expect you to admit that you can see it.

No, you're trying to deflect from the argument, and make me somehow seem like a horrible person because I dare villify drunk drivers for making a selfish, immature decision, and creating a totally preventable avenue for traumatic injury and death. You've created more strawmen here than a corn farmer. You've placed words I never said, and positions I don't take as coming out of my mouth. And you've injected your own self-righteous rage into this as if I had insulted your father, or your God.

Also, please explicitly state what question I was trying to beg, and post the relevant quote from me to prove it. I don't think you know what that phrase actually means.

I believe your entire argument, aforementioned logical fallacies aside, has been one big effort at begging the question. Expecially since you've made the attempt, in a nutshell, to say - "HOW DARE YOU JUDGE DRUNK DRIVERS, SOBER DRIVERS CAN WRECK TOO!"

Sorry to interrupt here, but I just want to make sure I'm reading this right: are there people (not just in this thread) that advocate for driving while intoxicated? As in, people have a right to drive drunk? Is that what's being said here?

/this must be one of those USA-ian things that the rest of us don't quite understand.

Oh good. More self-righteous rage.

untaken_name: No, that is what YOU are doing because you don't want to face the harsh truth that the vast majority of drivers who cause accidents are stone-cold sober when they do it. *I* was making a comparison between them. You don't want to face up to the truths such a comparison reveals, so you claim that I am off-topic. Nice one, but pretty transparent. If you are going to go on and on about intellectual honesty, it would be really nice of you to demonstrate some. I note that you still cannot articulate what question it is that you believe I have been begging, nor can you find a quote from me to provide as evidence of such. Therefore, you are intellectually dishonest. Here, let me show you what this would look like:

Ok. Please show me my intellectual dishonesty. I'll wait for it. Meanwhile, I'll hum a jaunty show tune.

*Sings* My little pony....My little pony...Aaaaaahh...

BronyMedic: Even stranger that despite the fact that YOU say they don't need white-knighting, you still come along and white-knight them anyway. So you're doing something that you claim is not needed...why would you do that? Oh, right. Bias again.

Actually, no, no I didn't. You're more than welcome to quote where I did, though, if you can find time between your self-righteous rant here.

Here you go:

BronyMedic: No, I don't think that a sober driver, who acted with due dilligance and was placed in an unfortunate situation which resulted in an accident, should not be allowed to drive again.

This is you white-knighting sober drivers, excusing them as people who "acted with due dilligance and was placed in an unfortunate situation which resulted in an accident". That is what is known as sticking up for someone who didn't ask you to in a completely ridiculous and biased manner, otherwise known as "white-knighting" on this here interweb thing. This is a quote of you doing it. See how this works? Go ahead, give it a try, if you're capable. Oh, right, you're not. Have a blissful day! I'm sure you will.

Oh, Ok. I see what the problem is. Reading comprehension! However, as I hate to see someone who's oblivious to having their logic dashed because they are too red in the face to see it, I've bolded two key words in the quote of mine you used to point out my "intellectual dishonesty".

You do realize what Due Dilligance means, right? You do also realize that your entire argument hinges around a driver not exercising due dilligance, which - in this case - you used the example of a distracted driver.

Do me a favor. Step away from the computer. Take two deep breaths. Count backwards from 10. And then fully read what you're replying to before you go off on another tirade. You'll probibly also live longer.

ghost_who_walks: Sorry to interrupt here, but I just want to make sure I'm reading this right: are there people (not just in this thread) that advocate for driving while intoxicated? As in, people have a right to drive drunk? Is that what's being said here?

/this must be one of those USA-ian things that the rest of us don't quite understand.

Yes, but those are very rare. More often, you get the kind of person who likes to point out that DUI is a "relatively harmless" crime, and totally unworthy of the attention it recieves.

untaken_name: BronyMedic: self-righteous rage.

You have trouble with the meanings of words, don't you? I haven't been promoting the correctness of my own conduct in this thread at all, nor have I been posting with any anger, real or apparent, whatsoever. The words you are looking for are "amused contempt".

AHA!

BronyMedic: You do realize what Due Dilligance means, right? You do also realize that your entire argument hinges around a driver not exercising due dilligance, which - in this case - you used the example of a distracted driver.

No, I have no idea what "dilligance" is, nor why it would be capitalized. I know what "due diligence" is, though. Sober drivers who cause accidents aren't performing due diligence. I have no idea whether they're exercising "Due Dilligance" or not.

Oh, good. We've moved from logical fallacies to grammatical pedantry! Your debate teacher must be proud.

Fluorescent Testicle: Debating common sense with untaken_name is like debating scientific theory with Bevets.

I figured he'd get the hint I was beyond being serious with him when I started singing the theme to My Little Pony.