Bloody Idiot

[Traditional_Ale]

I am wishing all of CP a wonderful and safe New Year.

If you drink and drive (tonight especially), you're a bloody idiot.

[chemgear]

Have a safe one folks!

[HELPNEEDED]

Ah yeah !

[Kavvy]

I would like to share an experience about drinking and driving.


As you well know, some of us have been lucky not to have had brushes with the authorities on our way home from the various social sessions over the years.

A couple of nights ago, I was out for a few drinks with some friends and had a few too many beers and then topped it off with a margarita. Not a good idea.

Knowing full well I was at least slightly over the limit, I did something I've never done before: I took a taxi home.

Sure enough I passed a police road block but because it was a taxi, they waved it past.

I arrived home safely without incident, which was a real surprise.


I have never driven a taxi before, and am not sure where I got it.

[Kavvy]

Hope everyone had a safe and happy new years!

[LIP MAN]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I am wishing all of CP a wonderful and safe New Year.

If you drink and drive (tonight especially), you're a bloody idiot.

Can't agree more! Happy New Years!

[jayocal]

Although drinking and driving is an obvious problem and is unacceptable, I believe horrible sober drivers are much more of a problem that needs even more attention.

I drive for a living and log at least 200 km a day in the city. The hundreds of thousands of poor drivers pose more of a threat than the handful of drunk drivers. By a large margin.

[missdpuck]

You have to be drunk to drive around here, at least during this time of year.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Kavy

I would like to share an experience about drinking and driving.


As you well know, some of us have been lucky not to have had brushes with the authorities on our way home from the various social sessions over the years.

A couple of nights ago, I was out for a few drinks with some friends and had a few too many beers and then topped it off with a margarita. Not a good idea.

Knowing full well I was at least slightly over the limit, I did something I've never done before: I took a taxi home.

Sure enough I passed a police road block but because it was a taxi, they waved it past.

I arrived home safely without incident, which was a real surprise.


I have never driven a taxi before, and am not sure where I got it.

Haha thanks man, I cracked up at the end there.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Haha thanks man, I cracked up at the end there.

no problem, someone forwarded it to me an I thought it was great. Hopefully not considered to much in bad taste for this thread.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by jayocal

Although drinking and driving is an obvious problem and is unacceptable, I believe horrible sober drivers are much more of a problem that needs even more attention.

I drive for a living and log at least 200 km a day in the city. The hundreds of thousands of poor drivers pose more of a threat than the handful of drunk drivers. By a large margin.

I would disagree that they are much more of a problem, but I see what you're saying. I think accidents involving alcohol are going to have a higher likelihood of death than accidents involving base moron behaviour.

The best numbers I can find suggest 30% of road fatalities are alcohol related, which I can only assume is the biggest chunk of the pie when you factor in other behaviours such as speeding, using a phone, no shoulder checking, poor merging etc.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Russic

I would disagree that they are much more of a problem, but I see what you're saying. I think accidents involving alcohol are going to have a higher likelihood of death than accidents involving base moron behaviour.

The best numbers I can find suggest 30% of road fatalities are alcohol related, which I can only assume is the biggest chunk of the pie when you factor in other behaviours such as speeding, using a phone, no shoulder checking, poor merging etc.

30%? Not disagreeing, but that seems pretty high to me.

[jayswin]

Alcohol use by drivers was a factor in almost 30% of deaths from vehicle crashes during 2003-2005

Hmmm, the more you know.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Russic

I would disagree that they are much more of a problem, but I see what you're saying. I think accidents involving alcohol are going to have a higher likelihood of death than accidents involving base moron behaviour.

The best numbers I can find suggest 30% of road fatalities are alcohol related, which I can only assume is the biggest chunk of the pie when you factor in other behaviours such as speeding, using a phone, no shoulder checking, poor merging etc.

Alcohol related =/= Impaired driving.

A non-fatal auto accident is defined as alcohol-related if the police accident report indicates there is evidence of alcohol present. It does not necessarily mean that the driver or passengers were tested for alcohol. The National Highway Safety Administration defines a fatal auto accident as alcohol-related or alcohol-involved if either a driver, or pedestrian, had a measurable or estimated blood alcohol concentration [BAC] of 0.01 grams per deciliter or above.

http://www.alfaaic.net/Glossary.asp

It does allow for some "think of the children" ads and for MADD to point at these types of stats to further their prohibitionist agenda though.

P.S. I'm all for tougher penalties for drunk drivers. I'm not in support of tougher penalties against drivers that are perfectly fine to drive and broke no laws who happened to have a beer or two with dinner.

[ernie]

Don't drink and drive.

And wear your seat belts. I know there was a post in a thread somewhere wondering about how many fatalities involved people not wearing seatbelts. Not sure it was answered and I can't find the thread right now so I'll put it here. The past 6 months on I-44 in SW Missouri there are electronic signs with a running total for 2012. The last number I saw was 700+ death on Missouri roads and 67% not wearing seat belts (it's ranged from 65-67% since the signs went up).

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by polak

Alcohol related =/= Impaired driving.



http://www.alfaaic.net/Glossary.asp

It does allow for some "think of the children" ads and for MADD to point at these types of stats to further their prohibitionist agenda though.

P.S. I'm all for tougher penalties for drunk drivers. I'm not in support of tougher penalties against drivers that are perfectly fine to drive and broke no laws who happened to have a beer or two with dinner.

I am confused by the point of your post.

30% of fatal accidents involve alcohol, which means either "either a driver, or pedestrian, had a measurable or estimated blood alcohol concentration [BAC] of 0.01 grams per deciliter or above."

Your post seems to advocate that any BAC while operating a vehicle should be criminal, since you are implying that even though people are not breaking the law by driving, they are involved in a disproportionate number of fatal car accidents. Unless of course more than 30% of all drivers on the road at any point in time have a BAC of higher than 0.01, which I seriously doubt.

[polak]

No. I'm saying that Alcohol related doesn't mean anyone was drunk and hence it helps pad such stastics.

If you take all the actual drunk drivers who cause fatal accidents then add in every person that got into a fatal accident with a BAC of above .01 (which is what? A Beer?) regardless of who was actually at fault in the accident or what the reason for the accident was, then it's easy to see where the 30% number comes from. The accident could be caused by a speeder hitting a pedestrian who was crossing legally and happened to have had beer earlier and it would fall under "alcohol related fatality" when in reality the alcohol had zero effect on the situation.

The statistic is padded. That is my argument.

[Rathji]

If having a BAC of over 0.01 involves you in more accidents, which is what this stat and your comment/quote would indicate, how does the legal definition of "drunk driving" play any part?

Are you really saying that drunk pedestrians are to blame for enough accidents that it is statistically significant? That's the only "padding" going on here. If anything, the addition of the people in the 0.01 to 0.07 range would be padding the stats in the favour of actual drunk drivers, since, like you claimed, the alcohol would have had a limited impact on the results for the non-drunk people, and they would likely be a much higher proportion of the total drivers on the road.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If having a BAC of over 0.01 involves you in more accidents, which is what this stat and your comment/quote would indicate, how does the legal definition of "drunk driving" play any part?

Are you really saying that drunk pedestrians are to blame for enough accidents that it is statistically significant? That's the only "padding" going on here. If anything, the addition of the people in the 0.01 to 0.07 range would be padding the stats in the favour of actual drunk drivers, since, like you claimed, the alcohol would have had a limited impact on the results for the non-drunk people, and they would likely be a much higher proportion of the total drivers on the road.

I'm confused by what you're trying to argue here?
When people hear "alcohol related" the vast majority assume that a drunk driver caused the accident. Which, by definition, is not the case.

If you start throwing in every single event that includes someone who has had a beer in the past hour or two into your statistic regardless of actual fault or cause, you end up with a bigger number, hence a padded statistic.

If you haven't consumed any alcohol, start driving, get distracted and cause an accident and kill a pedestrian who had beer an hour ago, it's labelled as "alcohol related" which adds to that 30% when in reality it shouldn't, which fudges the number because whether or not that pedestrian had that beer earlier, you still would have hit him and he still would have died.

It would be like labelling any fatal accident that involved a driver or pedestrian who had a cell phone on their person as a "distraction related" accident, regardless if they were talking on the phone or not and regardless of who was at fault. The cellphone is a non-factor that is being included in the statistics in order to pad the numbers.

At 0.01 the BAC is a non-factor that is being included to pad numbers.

[Huntingwhale]

I was at a house party on NYE outside of Calgary. This one guy drove home absolutely plastered with 4 other people in his car even after everyone tried to stop him. He drove into a ditch about 10 minutes away from the party. Never in my life have I been more glad to hear of someone driving into a ditch. The guy was so bloody wasted that there was no doubt in my mind he would have hurt someone. So yes, you are a bloody idiot if you DD.