Almost ruined my life tonight

[Ardentfrost]

Although I don't always agree with speed limits, I am completely against drunk driving. The OP is an idiot for even doing so. If I were a cop, there's no way I'd let someone off if they were driving while drunk because in my opinion, that's the same as shooting a gun wildly in the air. Sure, you might not hit anyone, but you might... it's reckless, stupid, and when you do fuck up you're at best adding to statistics that cause insurance companies to raise rate, and at worst taking someone's (or multiple people's) life. If you want to be reckless with your own safety, go home and smash your head in with a hammer, but drunk driving is being reckless with the lives of others. I don't like my government being reckless with people's lives, and I don't like my fellow citizens being reckless with them either.

So, I think the OP deserves something WAY worse than what he got. But our DUI punishment in most areas is so lax, I doubt it really would have "ruined your life" even if they had been hardasses about it. 6 months with a suspended license or a few days in jail or a nominal fine is nothing.

[7960]

glad everyone is ok

learn from this.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

How do you know he was endangering anyone? It's quite possible that he was driving perfectly with the exception of speeding. In fact, that's more likely the case considering they didn't give him a DUI.

using this logic I'm going to start randomly firing my gun up in the air..... please don't object, you don't know if I'm endangering anyone and it's quite possible doing it is perfectly safe.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 7960

glad everyone is ok

learn from this.


using this logic I'm going to start randomly firing my gun up in the air..... please don't object, you don't know if I'm endangering anyone and it's quite possible doing it is perfectly safe.

Difference is that the cops assessed his driving.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

The speed limit doesn't necessarily mean shit as far as safety is concerned. The fact that he's breaking the speed limit doesn't mean that anyone is in danger at all. I speed all the time. In fact, I treat the speed limit as a minimum speed everywhere I go (which all adds up to 15k miles/yr). I have never once been in an accident or even come close to getting into one. So that posit is complete rubbish.

The drinking part is what's in question here. Some people can, and do, drive perfectly fine while legally drunk. So again, it is quite possible that his driving was perfect, and therefore nobody was in danger. If his driving was "dangerous" the cops wouldn't have been so nice to him. So that posit, as well, is complete rubbish.


I win.

What a disgusting comment...

Here are some facts related to speeding which the most important fact being that speed was a factor in 30% of all fatal crashes! Saying speeding doesn't put anyone in danger at all is factually incorrrect. Add alcohol into the mix and more often then not speed becomes very dangerous and fatal.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), approximately 43,000 people died in automobile related accidents in 2005.
Almost 17,000 people died in alcohol-related crashes in 2005. This is an incredible statistic. Interestingly, speeding is cited as the second major factor in automobile related deaths. In 2004, over 13,000 deaths were attributed to speed-related accidents. Speeding was a contributing factor in roughly 30 percent of all fatal accidents. Clearly, the lesson here is to slow down a bit. Shaving a few minutes of travel time is certainly not worth the increased odds of a fatal car crash. The most dangerous situation is the combination of alcohol and speed. Statistically, this is especially true for drivers in the 16 – 24 year old category, although no age is safe to drink, drive and speed.




Research and Development of NHTSA

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Difference is that the cops assessed his driving.

That isn't what driving under the influence is about. It is measured by blood alcohol content.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Difference is that the cops assessed his driving.

so the police should be able to come by and exempt me from the law? they should be allowed to say "it's illegal to fire a gun in the air but you seem to be doing it safely so continue"?



he'd already shown poor judgment once......when they discovered he was DUI they shouldn't have let him off.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Roonie

What a disgusting comment...

That's "factually incorrect."

Here is some facts related to speeding which the most important fact being that speed was a factor in 30% of all fatal crashes! Saying speeding doesn't put anyone in danger at all is factually incorrrect.

Danger is a matter of opinion, so there really aren't any "facts" about it.

Add alcohol into the mix and more often then not speed becomes very dangerous and fatal.

How do you know that? Did you poll people to find out who was speeding while drunk and made it home safe, and compare that to people that were speeding while drunk and died in an accident? Well if not, then I don't think you're at liberty to claim "more often than not." I'm willing to venture a guess that you just made that up.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), approximately 43,000 people died in automobile related accidents in 2005.
Almost 17,000 people died in alcohol-related crashes in 2005. This is an incredible statistic. Interestingly, speeding is cited as the second major factor in automobile related deaths. In 2004, over 13,000 deaths were attributed to speed-related accidents. Speeding was a contributing factor in roughly 30 percent of all fatal accidents. Clearly, the lesson here is to slow down a bit. Shaving a few minutes of travel time is certainly not worth the increased odds of a fatal car crash. The most dangerous situation is the combination of alcohol and speed. Statistically, this is especially true for drivers in the 16 – 24 year old category, although no age is safe to drink, drive and speed.

Those numbers aren't very impressive, actually. About 25% of fatalities in accidents are attributed to speeding (nevermind that the cause of the accident isn't mentioned in your statistic). How about some statistics that illustrate how many speeders get into accidents? Assuming that annually it's 100% (which it isn't, just so you know), then it's still not even statistically probable that you're going to die an accident as a result of someone that's speeding. Even when using the most liberal statistics, your posit falls flat on its ass.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That's "factually incorrect."


Danger is a matter of opinion, so there really aren't any "facts" about it.


How do you know that? Did you poll people to find out who was speeding while drunk and made it home safe, and compare that to people that were speeding while drunk and died in an accident? Well if not, then I don't think you're at liberty to claim "more often than not." I'm willing to venture a guess that you just made that up.


Those numbers aren't very impressive, actually. About 25% of fatalities in accidents are attributed to speeding (nevermind that the cause of the accident isn't mentioned in your statistic). How about some statistics that illustrate how many speeders get into accidents? Assuming that annually it's 100% (which it isn't, just so you know), then it's still not even statistically probable that you're going to die an accident as a result of someone that's speeding. Even when using the most liberal statistics, your posit falls flat on its ass.

This entire post is so intellectually dishonest it's not funny.

Of course not every speeder or drinker is going to get in an accident, but chances are if you speed or drink you significantly increase your chances of getting in an accident.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

That isn't what driving under the influence is about. It is measured by blood alcohol content.

When you use blood alcohol level as a measuring device to determine one's level of impairment, do you take into consideration that everyone reacts differently to different amounts of alcohol. Or, in other words, do you personalize this measurement to accurately reflect their level of impairment or do you just simply go by the averages?

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That's "factually incorrect."


Danger is a matter of opinion, so there really aren't any "facts" about it.


How do you know that? Did you poll people to find out who was speeding while drunk and made it home safe, and compare that to people that were speeding while drunk and died in an accident? Well if not, then I don't think you're at liberty to claim "more often than not." I'm willing to venture a guess that you just made that up.


Those numbers aren't very impressive, actually. About 25% of fatalities in accidents are attributed to speeding (nevermind that the cause of the accident isn't mentioned in your statistic). How about some statistics that illustrate how many speeders get into accidents? Assuming that annually it's 100% (which it isn't, just so you know), then it's still not even statistically probable that you're going to die an accident as a result of someone that's speeding. Even when using the most liberal statistics, your posit falls flat on its ass.

wow........ your an idiot............ I will not proceed with discussion.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

When you use blood alcohol level as a measuring device to determine one's level of impairment, do you take into consideration that everyone reacts differently to different amounts of alcohol.

setting a speed limit at 65 doesn't take into account that some people may be safe at 75 and others wouldn't be safe at 55 much less faster.......

Or, in other words, do you personalize this measurement to accurately reflect their level of impairment or do you just simply go by the averages?

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

When you use blood alcohol level as a measuring device to determine one's level of impairment, do you take into consideration that everyone reacts differently to different amounts of alcohol. Or, in other words, do you personalize this measurement to accurately reflect their level of impairment or do you just simply go by the averages?

Do you have to pretend to be an ignorant moron, or does it just come naturally to you?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 7960

This entire post is so intellectually dishonest it's not funny.

Of course not every speeder or drinker is going to get in an accident, but chances are if you speed or drink you significantly increase your chances of getting in an accident.

I wasn't being intellectually dishonest. I just don't like it when people throw around that word "fact" when they mean something completely different. His supposed "fact" was that "more often than not" people that drink while speeding wind up getting into an accident. Obviously such a claim is "factually incorrect" considering the number of people that drive while speeding and/or drunk and make it home safe.



Yes, statistically the danger factor is increased. Factually, speeding nor drinking necessitate any increased danger. People should only be punished if they've actually hurt someone. And the conscious decision to increase the amount of danger should be considered when deciding proper punishment to fit the crime.

Is it just me, or do these two seem awfully contradictory?

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That's "factually incorrect."


Danger is a matter of opinion, so there really aren't any "facts" about it.

How do you know that? Did you poll people to find out who was speeding while drunk and made it home safe, and compare that to people that were speeding while drunk and died in an accident? Well if not, then I don't think you're at liberty to claim "more often than not." I'm willing to venture a guess that you just made that up.


Those numbers aren't very impressive, actually. About 25% of fatalities in accidents are attributed to speeding (nevermind that the cause of the accident isn't mentioned in your statistic). How about some statistics that illustrate how many speeders get into accidents? Assuming that annually it's 100% (which it isn't, just so you know), then it's still not even statistically probable that you're going to die an accident as a result of someone that's speeding. Even when using the most liberal statistics, your posit falls flat on its ass.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I wasn't being intellectually dishonest. I just don't like it when people throw around that word "fact" when they mean something completely different. His supposed "fact" was that "more often than not" people that drink while speeding wind up getting into an accident. Obviously such a claim is "factually incorrect" considering the number of people that drive while speeding and/or drunk and make it home safe.



Yes, statistically the danger factor is increased. Factually, speeding nor drinking necessitate any increased danger. People should only be punished if they've actually hurt someone. And the conscious decision to increase the amount of danger should be considered when deciding proper punishment to fit the crime.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Roonie

wow........ your an idiot............ I will not proceed with discussion.

I'll take that as a concession.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

Is it just me, or do these two seem awfully contradictory?

It's just you. Because if you knew the difference between a statistic and a fact, you would have understood my point before I ever even posted in this thread.


Statistics are circumstantial. They are not facts. It's vacuous to interpret a statistic as fact, and in many cases correlations between the two are misinterpreted as causality, yet another fallacy if we're to remain objective.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

People should only be punished if they've actually hurt someone. ..........

I should be allowed to fire bullets at your head while you mow your lawn and I should only be punished if I actually hit you

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 7960

I should be allowed to fire bullets at your head while you mow your lawn and I should only be punished if I actually hit you

I agree. And, like I said, your punishment should be reflective of the fact that you intentionally fired bullets at my head. You don't get to say, "Oh, oops, I was just trying to see how close I could get to his head without actually hitting it. My bad. " Likewise, when the drunk driver hits someone, he shouldn't get to say, "Oh, oops, I was just trying to get home safely, while I was drunk, without actually hitting anyone. My bad. " Yes, there should be increased punishments for drunk drivers ... but only if they actually violate someone else's rights.


C'mon, you should know by now that I am immune to sensationalist arguments.