Drinking and Driving.

On November 01 2009 07:56 LordWeird wrote:
Too late

On November 01 2009 09:38 XsebT wrote:
Dont drink and drive, you might hit someone... and spill your drink...

On November 01 2009 08:39 ShoCkeyy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeBRG4UZWiQ&feature=PlayList&p=21DAF77032C9AB08&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=26

start at 6:00

On November 01 2009 21:45 Kwark wrote:
My take on this is that if you drink and drive and nothing bad happens you're no better than someone who drinks and drives and kills a kid, just luckier. Ultimately you have the same statistical blame because you consciously chose to take the same risk. Poker does weird things to the way you see stuff.

On November 01 2009 21:52 biomedical wrote:


well thats retarded. you dont have the same "statistical blame" if you are tipsy and mature and driving in a controlled manner compared to an american lunatic.

the way i look at it (as you should do as a poker player) is:

theres a certainty that a 0.001% chance will occur eventually


ive got 2 DUIs
the 2nd one was for sleeping in my car in the passenger seat with the heater turned on in the middle of a freezing winter (instead of driving it home / instead of dying in the night). they woke me up, dragged me out and handcuffed me and i spent 12 hours in a cell

this shit has cost me an INSANE amount of money in bus tickets, time lost, fines etc. i wouldnt recommend it if you value your life. working 12 hour shifts for nothing = fml

On November 01 2009 08:39 ShoCkeyy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeBRG4UZWiQ&feature=PlayList&p=21DAF77032C9AB08&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=26

start at 6:00

On November 01 2009 21:52 biomedical wrote:


well thats retarded. you dont have the same "statistical blame" if you are tipsy and mature and driving in a controlled manner compared to an american lunatic.

the way i look at it (as you should do as a poker player) is:

theres a certainty that a 0.001% chance will occur eventually


ive got 2 DUIs
the 2nd one was for sleeping in my car in the passenger seat with the heater turned on in the middle of a freezing winter (instead of driving it home / instead of dying in the night). they woke me up, dragged me out and handcuffed me and i spent 12 hours in a cell

this shit has cost me an INSANE amount of money in bus tickets, time lost, fines etc. i wouldnt recommend it if you value your life. working 12 hour shifts for nothing = fml

On November 01 2009 21:52 biomedical wrote:


well thats retarded. you dont have the same "statistical blame" if you are tipsy and mature and driving in a controlled manner compared to an american lunatic.

the way i look at it (as you should do as a poker player) is:

theres a certainty that a 0.001% chance will occur eventually


ive got 2 DUIs
the 2nd one was for sleeping in my car in the passenger seat with the heater turned on in the middle of a freezing winter (instead of driving it home / instead of dying in the night). they woke me up, dragged me out and handcuffed me and i spent 12 hours in a cell

this shit has cost me an INSANE amount of money in bus tickets, time lost, fines etc. i wouldnt recommend it if you value your life. working 12 hour shifts for nothing = fml

On November 01 2009 22:33 Kwark wrote:

People like you shouldn't be allowed to drive. You're obviously incapable of understanding the responsibility that goes with control of a potentially lethal bit of engineering. Society takes a risk when it lets you operate a vehicle capable of killing others easily. You should accept that risk and abide by the rules they set down.
Don't fucking drink and drive. Everyone is happy to condemn the guy who is drunk and kills someone. He's no different to the guy who is drunk and gets home incident free, he just runs worse.
Also it takes two peoples mistakes to cause an accident. Those times when you're driving along and a guy pulls out in front of you and you have to slam on the breaks because he's a fucking retard. Yeah, he's a crap driver and if you hadn't been a good driver he'd have caused an accident. When that happens and your reaction time is slowed because you're tipsy, he's still a crap driver, you're the drunk guy who killed him.
It's not about whether you can still drive 'sensibly' while drunk. Your reactions are slowed, fact. You're risking other peoples' lives without their consent against the rules by which society allows you to drive.

On November 01 2009 21:52 biomedical wrote:


well thats retarded. you dont have the same "statistical blame" if you are tipsy and mature and driving in a controlled manner compared to an american lunatic.

the way i look at it (as you should do as a poker player) is:

theres a certainty that a 0.001% chance will occur eventually


ive got 2 DUIs
the 2nd one was for sleeping in my car in the passenger seat with the heater turned on in the middle of a freezing winter (instead of driving it home / instead of dying in the night). they woke me up, dragged me out and handcuffed me and i spent 12 hours in a cell

this shit has cost me an INSANE amount of money in bus tickets, time lost, fines etc. i wouldnt recommend it if you value your life. working 12 hour shifts for nothing = fml

On November 01 2009 22:42 biomedical wrote:



yeah....try reading my post next time
+ Show Spoiler +

On November 02 2009 01:30 Kwark wrote:

Nowhere in your post did you say that. I said that someone who is drunk and doesn't kill anyone is as responsible as someone who is drunk and does. Ie not two different levels of drunkenness. To which you replied that someone who is tipsy is not as responsible as an American lunatic. American lunacy is not a byword for extremely drunk. So you attempted to disagree with my post despite the fact that you now say you agree with it. But fucked up your agreeing of it by accidentally typing the wrong words.

I didn't misread your post. You appear to have mistyped your post by making a basic error of using a set of words that give a meaning completely different to the one you meant. You might want to work on that to avoid future confusion.

On November 02 2009 02:10 biomedical wrote:


i did say that.
+ Show Spoiler +
but it feels like you didn't understand. no harm done

my distaste of your original post remains, because (as i said) it doesnt address the actual issue: the reality that some people decide to drive drunk.

if you tell someone that they're just as responsible as a killer, it means NOTHING to them. they will simply reason that "i'm not so drunk that it would have a significant impact on my skills - besides ill drive slower and more carefully. ive done it before and was fine".

he fact that you arbitrarily class them as responsible as a killer MEANS NOTHING in the real world. nobody gives a shit. if they're a drink driver then OBVIOUSLY they dont see eye to eye with you, and you haven't done anything to convince them that they can't somehow refute/ignore.

that's why i prefer to tell people: a 1 in 1000 chance WILL HAPPEN FOR SURE. (whether its a chance that they get in an accident, or a chance that they simply get caught by the cops!!!)

you're very simply proving to them that whatever "unlikely circumstance" they think is "terribly unlikely" , is actually a certainty just waiting to occur

i dont see a more profound/high impact way of dealing with the problem than this

On November 02 2009 02:10 Kiarip wrote:

Um, yes it does... They should go to jail for attempted manslaughter, or is 10ish years in prison not real world enough for you?

On November 02 2009 02:10 biomedical wrote:


i did say that.
+ Show Spoiler +
but it feels like you didn't understand. no harm done

my distaste of your original post remains, because (as i said) it doesnt address the actual issue: the reality that some people decide to drive drunk.

if you tell someone that they're just as responsible as a killer, it means NOTHING to them. they will simply reason that "i'm not so drunk that it would have a significant impact on my skills - besides ill drive slower and more carefully. ive done it before and was fine".

the fact that you arbitrarily class them as responsible as a killer MEANS NOTHING in the real world. nobody gives a shit. if they're a drink driver then OBVIOUSLY they dont see eye to eye with you, and you haven't done anything to convince them that they can't somehow refute/ignore.

that's why i prefer to tell people: a 1 in 1000 chance WILL HAPPEN FOR SURE. (whether its a chance that they get in an accident, or a chance that they simply get caught by the cops!!!)

you're very simply proving to them that whatever "unlikely circumstance" they think is "terribly unlikely" , is actually a certainty just waiting to occur

i dont see a more profound/high impact way of dealing with the problem than this

On November 02 2009 02:48 muse5187 wrote:


Yeah, lets also put people in our overcrowded jails because they might do something. These people need medical help not 10 years in jail. You should put your crazy views on the side burner.

On November 02 2009 02:58 infinity21 wrote:
Wait, so people are against having 1 beer before driving as well? :s

On November 02 2009 02:48 muse5187 wrote:


Yeah, lets also put people in our overcrowded jails because they might do something. These people need medical help not 10 years in jail. You should put your crazy views on the side burner.

On November 02 2009 03:08 {ToT}Strafe wrote:
Is it okay to drink 4 beers the entire evening and then drive? (entire evening defined as 8pm to 1 am)

On November 02 2009 03:16 biomedical wrote:


is it okay to bring just 4 bullets in the gun you'll be waving recklessly around?

On November 02 2009 02:59 Valentine wrote:

Right, and people are gambling on that 1 in 1000 chance to be responsible for killing somebody. If the world were just like two drunk drivers crash into each other and high five, then yeah fuck go ahead and do it. Reality is that it's a selfish thing to do because innocent people are killed. And your "real world" seems a lot different than the one I live in, or the one that some of these other TLers live in.

Fact is, everyone I know and I drink with all look down on it very seriously. If someone doesn't have a way to get home with someone sober at the wheel, then we let them pass out wherever said party was, and gtfo in the morning sometime. If you want to party, that's cool, but you should be responsible enough to at least find a way back to your home without endangering anyone else in the process. You're not 12 (well, maybe you are), it's not that hard to figure out.

ALSO: 0.001% does not equal 1/1000. In fact, it's pretty far from it :3

On November 02 2009 02:48 muse5187 wrote:


Yeah, lets also put people in our overcrowded jails because they might do something. These people need medical help not 10 years in jail. You should put your crazy views on the side burner.

On November 02 2009 Valentine wrote:
I usually agree with the overcrowding argument, but here, not so much. If you're talking about drug offenders and the like, I don't believe that many of them deserve to be in jail here at all. On the other hand, when someone has died, it should be taken slightly more seriously, no?

On November 02 2009 03:08 {ToT}Strafe wrote:
Is it okay to drink 4 beers the entire evening and then drive? (entire evening defined as 8pm to 1 am)

On November 02 2009 02:10 biomedical wrote:


i did say that.
+ Show Spoiler +
but it feels like you didn't understand. no harm done

my distaste of your original post remains, because (as i said) it doesnt address the actual issue: the reality that some people decide to drive drunk.

if you tell someone that they're just as responsible as a killer, it means NOTHING to them. they will simply reason that "i'm not so drunk that it would have a significant impact on my skills - besides ill drive slower and more carefully. ive done it before and was fine".

the fact that you arbitrarily class them as responsible as a killer MEANS NOTHING in the real world. nobody gives a shit. if they're a drink driver then OBVIOUSLY they dont see eye to eye with you, and you haven't done anything to convince them that they can't somehow refute/ignore.

that's why i prefer to tell people: a 1 in 1000 chance WILL HAPPEN FOR SURE. (whether its a chance that they get in an accident, or a chance that they simply get caught by the cops!!!)

you're very simply proving to them that whatever "unlikely circumstance" they think is "terribly unlikely" , is actually a certainty just waiting to occur

i dont see a more profound/high impact way of dealing with the problem than this

On November 02 2009 03:53 lMPERVlOUS wrote:
If you're going to drive after drinking, you have to be smart about it.

If you go out, and have 2 drinks between 10 and 11 pm, and then you are the DD for when you all leave at 3 am, that gives you 4 hours to burn off those two beers. You burn off nearly 1 beer per hour, so you are probably fine.

Now, if you are still drinking at 2 am, and try to sober up for 3, you're just screwing yourself over, as well as anyone you are supposed to be driving home.

Even then, your tolerance for alcohol can make a big difference. Some people should not even consider driving after having a single drink. Others can burn the alcohol faster.

On November 02 2009 06:40 Captain Mayhem wrote:

Even if you are 100% sure you would be totally OK to drive afterwards, it might still be a risk for *yourself*. If you get pulled over by the cops for speeding, or anything of the sorts, and have to take an alcohol test, there's a small risk that you might fuck up because of such a plan I've heard that those thingies they use can be slightly off under certain circumstances, so personally I wouldn't take the risk.

On November 02 2009 00:55 fanatacist wrote:
Oooh boy this thread is a ticking time bomb. I am going to stay out of this one.

On November 02 2009 06:55 lMPERVlOUS wrote:


You take a big risk every time you step into a car. That risk is of dying or killing someone else. It is unlikely that it will happen in either case, during any given trip, but it is a chance.

Now, some people are inferior drivers anyways. I would feel safer in the passenger seat of a car driven by a drunk stunt driver than I would be in the passenger seat of one of my ex's while she was sober. She's had her license for 3 years now, and has had 6 accidents, as well as numerous minor scrapes and shit..... It's one of the few times I have been genuinely scared in my life, and I've been bungee jumping and all sorts of dumb, crazy shit like that..... It ranked right up there with the time I was in the middle of a drive by..... I'm never going back to Detroit.....

So ->
poor driver + drunk < poor driver + not drunk.
average driver + drunk < average driver + not drunk.
good driver + drunk < good driver + not drunk.

average driver + drunk ~ poor driver + not drunk. *
good driver + drunk ~ average driver + not drunk. *

* By "drunk", I mean right at the legal limit. And this is just a guess, which is why I have a ~ instead of a < or >. I think they're pretty close. Severely drunk throws this off completely, and should never be allowed to drive

On November 02 2009 07:14 StalkerSC wrote:
I walk home from parties.. That way if i get hit by a truck its not my fault

On November 02 2009 00:55 fanatacist wrote:
Oooh boy this thread is a ticking time bomb. I am going to stay out of this one.

On November 02 2009 09:30 Ronald_McD wrote:
My exgirlfriend used to do this all the time. What a dumb bitch.

It's generally a pretty shitty idea lol. It never bothered me so much before but now I see how much it screws people's lives up

On November 01 2009 09:43 DeathSpank wrote:
no I would never drink and drive. I need to stay sober to perform the sweet drifts and high speed maneuvers that I do while driving through my neighborhood. Tonight is going to be a nice night for a drive. I am going to try and break 90 on this one street that's right by my old elementary school. I even think they're having a halloween party tonight there too. It's going to be sweet.

On November 02 2009 10:25 GreEny K wrote:



Yeah lets go speeding down a street during Halloween, good idea with all the kids running around. Some people amaze me.

On November 02 2009 11:21 Wangsta wrote:
AFAIK, the argument is that there is a difference between a guy who gets a little tipsy and drives, versus the guy who gets smashed and drives

If you look a things from a practical point of view, there's a huge difference, because the guy who is more drunk is much more likely to have an accident

But morally, both of those people are fucked up. If you drive drunk, you are basically saying "I don't care if I am increasing my likelihood of killing someone, because it's still unlikely to happen." If you think like that, you simply aren't being a responsible person.

On November 02 2009 12:09 lMPERVlOUS wrote:


What if I had a lower chance of killing someone while driving after 2 beers than my ex gf while sober? Would it really be morally wrong for me to drive with 2 beers in me, or would it be morally wrong for me to let my ex drive at any given time?

Food for thought.

On November 02 2009 12:00 Unforgiven_ve wrote:
what about driving between sips?

+ Show Spoiler +

On November 02 2009 12:31 eMbrace wrote:


I think it's morally wrong to willingly reduce your skill at driving and then get into a vehicle.

Comparing yourself to a terrible sober driver is irrelevant. That is a problem related to terrible driving schools and license requirements -- not your personal decisions.

On November 02 2009 14:28 lMPERVlOUS wrote:


You reduce your skill at driving when you get behind the wheel while you are tired. Or on ANY DRUG (legal or not). If you are driving without sunglasses when it is bright out, or there is a lot of glare. If you are distracted by anything (passengers, music, cellphone, etc). Heck, your skill at driving is reduced if you don't have 2 hands on the wheel at all times. Why is a little bit of alcohol different? The only thing I could think of is that it is a prejudice against alcohol. Which I can completely understand, however, it doesn't work well in a logical debate.....

And I'm not going to comment on the licensing requirements, other than to say that every country has dumb drivers. But the fact is, they are deemed to be safe enough drivers to get a license. And if I was still a safer driver than them, with a few beers in me, why should I be in trouble, if that is an acceptable skill level for a driver?

I agree, driving and drinking do not mix. If you are going to do it, you need to be smart about it. As in, you need to drink little, and early, and let yourself burn it off by the time you need to drive. But I also think you shouldn't be allowed to drive tired, nor have any distractions (I used to take my mom's cellphone away from her while she was driving and I was a passenger, and I still always ask her if she's driving while on the phone with me. She's learned to lie, so as soon as I hear some traffic or something, I hang up and wait for her to call me back 10 minutes later).

But, from a logical point of view, drinking and driving = wrong holds no water at all. Not to say that it is a smart choice, but saying that it is wrong, without considering other factors is just dumb. That's like saying "bubblegum killed someone, so therefore it should be banned"..... Sure, it happens, and the more bubblegum you eat, the bigger the chance that it will kill you. But that's just a dumb conclusion, and without considering all of the facts, it's misleading.

On November 02 2009 14:56 Wangsta wrote:


The reason why alcohol needs to be treated differently than the other things you mentioned, is because alcohol can affect your judgment. It's very easy to say "I'm not drunk," when in truth you might be more tipsy than you realize. I've also known quite a few people who had really bad experiences because they felt "okay" and got in their car, but then realized that they were not okay once they were on the road and had no choice but to keep driving.

The problem with saying "smart drunk driving is fine" is that you'll have the idea in your head that drunk driving is okay under some circumstances. That's fine 99% of the time, but it's very possible that you could get smashed one day and that small thought in the back of your head will lead you to drive when you are NOT okay. If you just tell yourself that drunk driving is always bad, then you'll never have to take that risk.

It also prevents you from making potentially stupid decisions, such as saying "I won't drink too much at the party tonight, I'm only going to get a little buzzed, so it's okay to go without a DD"

On November 03 2009 01:48 lMPERVlOUS wrote:


Okay, and, being in an emotional state of mind (angry, sad, etc), and preoccupied with these thoughts reduces the driving skill of the driver, and also affects judgment. Does that mean that everyone who is a little pissed off, or a little sad, should be fined if they are pulled over by the cops? It follows the exact same line of thought as driving drunk (reduces driving skill and affects judgment).

Next time you're behind the wheel, think about how you feel (before you actually start driving). Is there anything preoccupying your mind (what you have to do at work when you get there, the fight you just had with parents/significant other, that date you're headed out too, etc. Any thoughts like that reduce your driving skill, and, if those thoughts come along with emotions, it can cloud your judgment, in similar ways as alcohol.

There have been studies on this, and, emotional responses can be stronger than the effects of a couple of drinks..... Clearly, by your logic, anyone emotionally distressed should never be behind the wheel. Yet, where are the laws against it?