|
Canada3819 Posts
On October 14 2007 08:19 gameguard wrote:
You people telling me to walk or ride a bike, get real. Why dont you come to the US and ride your bike 30 miles to downtown and back. And who the fuck rides a bike to places in the states. Riding a taxi everytime you wana go out is almost as ridiculous. I am not made of money, nor would I go through that shit when I have my own car. Its pretty much accepted here that there will inevitably be drunk driving when people go out. I guess there is more of a stigma against this in Europe and its progressed enough that majority of the people find alternate modes of transportation. Also, you guys must live in some small ass towns if you can actually ride your bycicle everywhere.
Sometimes people just need to understand that customs and culture vary in different parts of the world. Read the snake vs. baby thread and you'll see what I mean.
Oh, and I dont think its fartetched to believe that many of you never go out in the first place. When you grow up and start having fun, you better pay for that damn cab, you hypocrite.
Yeah, I do pay for cabs, I do have a driver - if everyone else is adamant on drinking, I'll drive. But never will I exceed the legal limit for driving, especially when I've got friends getting a ride with me home. If all of your friends go out with the intention of drink driving or if they accept it's most likely going to happen, then you're all repugnant motherfuckers which is probably the biggest thing you each have in common, thus which is probably why you are all friends.
Nor would you go through with "that shit"?
'That shit' is a small effortless ride home, why not split the cost with friends? Catch a ride to their house and crash there?
It can't be so exorbitant of a price that you can't ever afford it - if not, drink less or get drinks from a liquor store to save some money instead of paying full club price every time.
"It's pretty much accepted here that there will inevitably be drunk driving when people go out." Yeah, some people will drink drive, the minority, these are called fucking idiots. You are one of them.
"I guess there is more of a stigma against this in Europe and its progressed enough that majority of the people find alternate modes of transportation." Yeah, this is one of the most retarded things you've said yet. There may be more of a stigma because people were smart enough to find alternative modes of transport? No, I think the main stigma is that so many people are killed by cunts like you. Maybe you haven't crashed, or had a problem before, but it could happen and it's that 'could' that you never want to have. You wouldn't want a family member or a friend to be killed by a drunk driver would you? Your selfish attitude is utterly mind-boggling.
It's the attitude of "I'm ok, that's all that matters." Well let's see, if you hit someone you're ok, but they aren't.
"Sometimes people just need to understand that customs and culture vary in different parts of the world." Yeah, what...so the accepted culture of the US is for people to drink and drive? Accepted? Yeah by who? Other retards yes, society no. If it was accepted it wouldn't be illegal would it?
That's like saying "YEAH RAPE IZ LEGAL HERE, JUST ACCEPT IT OK?" (Which strangely enough I joked about ages ago on TL.)
"Oh, and I dont think its fartetched to believe that many of you never go out in the first place. When you grow up and start having fun, you better pay for that damn cab, you hypocrite." Yeah, ok...'cause you're the coolest person on TL and the only person with a social life.
I think you've collectively given a lot of people reason to value you as much as they do a piece of dog shit that they step in on the street.
|
i elect funchucks for the president and ceo of the world. or something.
just wow. i love you all.
|
On October 14 2007 10:47 Funchucks wrote:
I think drunk driving is demonized as a way to transfer our unease about the general dangers of driving to something we don't do.
Now, obviously it's not a good thing to do. Nobody is going to tell you that you should go out and drive drunk. However, a moderately intoxicated driver who is aware of that fact and driving with extra caution in the reduced traffic of the late night is not necessarily taking a more unreasonable risk with his life or the lives of the people around him than does a man who takes a long, groggy morning commute during rush hour in bad weather after a night of poor sleep, an argument with his wife, and a missed breakfast.
Driving is inherently dangerous. We drive at speeds and with an insensitivity to conditions that inevitably results in death from time to time.
We try to absolve ourselves of all responsibility, but the truth is we accept these deaths for our own convenience, and for the fun of driving fast (I don't mean speeding, but ordinary legal speeds).
One psychological maneuver people use to feel better about doing something they consider wrong is to demonize those who do something they consider worse.
Parents and educators who alternately neglect and spoil children demonize drug dealers and call for a war on drugs. People who overeat and don't exercise demonize smokers. Teenagers born into a life of privilege feel guilty for their unearned comfort, and for their failure to reject it, demonize those who provide it to them (who are "worse" than them by virtue of actively pursuing this outcome rather than merely accepting it). Unambitious workers who slid easily into a simple job demonize welfare recipients. People who have promiscuous sex demonize those who don't use condoms.
Motorists who accept a statistic of preventable deaths for the sake of their own convenience demonize drunk driving.
The habits of a person who drinks and drives will typically be far less safe than average, yet a person whose habits are safer than average might occasionally drink and drive. Drunk driving can be a reasonable, risk-conscious decision, depending on the specific circumstances.
There is another aspect, where people feel guilty simply for drinking. In a society where most recreational drugs are illegal, there is some cognitive dissonance with the exception made for alcohol, which is itself both intoxicating and addictive.
By focusing on the evils of driving drunk (which they don't do) people take focus off the evils of simply being drunk (which they do).
Now, I don't think people should drive drunk, but I do think we should be fair and realistic about it. By demonizing any behavior, we overemphasize its importance and distort our reason, preventing us from developing complete, mature perpectives, reaching sound conclusions, and forming optimal policies.
Sure, like any "risky activity", you can always find cases where there's other activities which are over- or underemphasized relative to it. For example, if we're using deaths and injuries as a measuring stick for how "dangerous" an activity is, the threat of domestic terrorism is incredibly overstated. The number of deaths and injuries caused by terrorists in the United States over ALL of history is just a fraction of the deaths and injuries due to drunk driving for a single year.
Drunk driving causes somewhere around 15,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries each year in the United States. How can that be overemphasized? Other than smoking and eating a bad diet (and MAYBE draconian gun control), there's really nothing else that even comes close in terms of the number of preventable deaths/injuries/illnesses.
Drunk driving can be a reasonable, risk-conscious decision, in some circumstances. So can jumping out of a third-story window. So can amputating your arm. It's silly to bring up these hypothetical statements; we can all make up such situations and we'll never get anywhere. No matter how you argue, the end fact is that essentially all drunk driving is unnecessary, and that any drunk driving (i.e. over the legal limit) increases the chances of an accident by a factor which, depending on how you measure it, is between 3-5X to dozens of times.
Yes, driving is inherently dangerous. But looked at from a cost/benefit point of view, getting rid of drunk driving is really the number one thing we can do to make the whole process of driving safer. Ending drunk driving should honestly be one of the easiest things society can do to reduce the number of preventable deaths.
Your argument about the person who slept poorly and is distracted being more dangerous on the roads is valid, and that person carries some amount of blame for those things that he could have controlled which might make his commute riskier. There is time and effort devoted to keeping sleepy people off the roads, but the impact of this practice is an order of magnitude or more less than that of drunk driving. The amount of emphasis should scale with the risk. And in no case does this argument have anything to do with what we should or shouldn't allow with respect to drunk driving.
The more important reason why your argument, while technically correct and well-stated, is not all that relevant, is that you are arguing from a position of sober clarity. Your argument is that a reasonable person can sometimes decide that driving drunk is not so bad and won't excessively increase the risk of an accident. Of course, the person making the decision is drunk, so you can't rely on their ability to reason whatsoever. This is why drunk driving laws exist; we can't afford to allow drunk people to make such an important decision. There is no "mature perspective" to be developed by a drunk person who's trying to get home.
Not to mention that people who end up in a situation, drunk, and where they have no way home other than drunk driving are generally less able to make responsible decisions than are the general public.
|
A couple of almost accidents while my dad was really tired during driving, careless drivers in the streets also. My sister had some dear death ones, she couldnt swim (still cant) and we were at some hotel pool and her body was facing towards the water, I thought she was swimming so I tell my mom she can finally swim and she like yanks her out and my sisters crying, I was so scared. And then another story, we left her in the car for like 3 hours during church and the weather was really hot, some person at our church had to tell my parents.
I havent drunk and I plan not to, looks like most of your alls is because drunkennes
But where did you get shot?
|
they call me drink and drive
I drink than I drive
All you have to do is speed so the cops don't know that you're drinking and driving
Pass people and big trucks.
Beep Beep
O shit one Way
Lol
|
Oh lord, gameguard, you're a fucking dickhead.
Like wow, is it "cool" to drive drunk or something where you're from?
Here's a tip: if you want to go out clubbing and drive home, DON'T GET DRUNK YOU DUMB CUNT.
Clear enough?
|
he thinks the only way to get on a car accident when your drunk is when you passed out on the wheel rofl ignorant idiot
|
I play with fire. I light a match and then spray the WD-40 in it as a flamethrower. Either that, or I fill a supersoaker with gas or WD-40, and make something to hold up something burning (paper, etc.) bye the nozzle.
|
On October 15 2007 11:28 TesisMech wrote:
he thinks the only way to get on a car accident when your drunk is when you passed out on the wheel rofl ignorant idiot
oh stfu. You beleive the world is 6000 years old. You have no right to call ANYONE ignorant. And yes, I am very certain that I would not crash my car due to physical impairment unless I was shitfaced drunk, in which case I would not drive. All you euros talkin shit can shove it too. Im not gona start a social revolution or something. Obviously whatever I say wont change a damned thing in your minds so I'm dropping it.
|
On October 15 2007 12:35 gameguard wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2007 11:28 TesisMech wrote:
he thinks the only way to get on a car accident when your drunk is when you passed out on the wheel rofl ignorant idiot oh stfu. You beleive the world is 6000 years old. You have no right to call ANYONE ignorant. And yes, I am very certain that I would not crash my car due to physical impairment unless I was shitfaced drunk, in which case I would not drive. All you euros talkin shit can shove it too. Im not gona start a social revolution or something. Obviously whatever I say wont change a damned thing in your minds so I'm dropping it.
Well, I think that you can learn an important point here. If something does happen, either a car accident or whatever, if you've had any alcohol at all, its automatically your fault and no one is going to cut you any breaks, even if alcohol really wasn't a factor in the situation.
|
Get on topic you dickfaces. This isn't youtube.
My family was going to California(driving), and my dad(apparently) thought it was a great fucking idea to get drunk before leaving from Texas to California(GREAT FUCKING JOB DAD). We took a camper, those trucks with the bed of the truck with a roof on it so that it turns it into like a surburban. Me and my sister were in the camper and my mom and my dad were in the front. My dad is going about 60-70 mph in this curve and my dad doesn't turn fast enough, so the camper goes off the road. Right as the tires hit the dirt though, it's like my dad became sober again and turned the steering wheel the other way so, instead of ramming into a power line at 60-70 mph like we should have, we ended up just "drifting" and avoiding it.
I was not able to sleep the rest of the 2 days it took to get to California.
|
Canada3819 Posts
On October 15 2007 12:35 gameguard wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2007 11:28 TesisMech wrote:
he thinks the only way to get on a car accident when your drunk is when you passed out on the wheel rofl ignorant idiot oh stfu. You beleive the world is 6000 years old. You have no right to call ANYONE ignorant. And yes, I am very certain that I would not crash my car due to physical impairment unless I was shitfaced drunk, in which case I would not drive. All you euros talkin shit can shove it too. Im not gona start a social revolution or something. Obviously whatever I say wont change a damned thing in your minds so I'm dropping it.
Dude, I hope you can see how fucking far in the wrong you are.
The reason whatever you say won't change a thing in our minds is because what you're saying is so despicably retarded.
|
Then all poor drivers (old people, asians, lots of women etc), also people who use their cellphones on the car should also put to jail, irresponsable fucktards endagering the lifes of others because of their own confort.
You are a poor driver? then dont drive ans use a taxi every single day... what is ur money worth more than the life of others?.
Its obviously navie wishful thinking, go to a club and you will see hundreds of cars parked there, parked cars that will get driven in a huge majority by drunk people.
Believe it or not there is responsable drunk driving and irresponsable drunk driving, the irresponsable ones are the ones crashing and doing retarded stuff.
There are idiots who will sway to one lane to another or fall asleep those are irresponsable drunks, but there are many many people who can drive competantly while drunk, yes their reflexes and response times are disminished but they are in no way a lethal danger to anybody,
|
On October 15 2007 09:31 Clutch3 wrote:
Sure, like any "risky activity", you can always find cases where there's other activities which are over- or underemphasized relative to it. For example, if we're using deaths and injuries as a measuring stick for how "dangerous" an activity is, the threat of domestic terrorism is incredibly overstated. The number of deaths and injuries caused by terrorists in the United States over ALL of history is just a fraction of the deaths and injuries due to drunk driving for a single year.
I don't want to get off topic, but I responded to the terrorist thing in this spoiler.
+ Show Spoiler +
"Terrorism" is not a focus of interest due to the statistics on the effects of past terrorism, but due to the potential for future terrorism. Intentional action is very different from accidents.
If someone drops a bomb on you today, you don't compare the number of people it killed to the number of people who choked on poorly chewed food last year, you go and make sure they won't drop ten bombs on you tomorrow.
Now, sometimes the right way to do this is to go investigate who did it and why, and just confirm that they're all dead or otherwise neutralized, and leave it at that. Sometimes diplomatic talks might prevent further deaths. Sometimes nothing's going to work except going out and hunting down the people responsible. Perhaps sometimes you have to attack a whole ideology at the root of the situation, whether by violence or more subtle means.
On 9/11, they went after an economic center and a military center. How many concentrated gatherings of leaders like that would you have to destroy before the USA lacked the capability to respond in a coordinated way? Car-bombing coffee shops is scary, but bombing key U.S. buildings threatens western civilization.
I would be greatly relieved if I could believe it was only terrorism. That mass assassination reminds me too much of the WW II allied concentration bombing on ball bearing factories, which crippled the axis war industry. Take out the right pillar, and the whole thing comes crashing down.
The USA hasn't suffered a lot of terrorist attacks, but whatever you want to call 9/11, it was a doozy. That one was a coordinated strike by 19 terrorists after years of preparation, killing thousands of important (yes, one human life is one human life, but these had special strategic relevance) Americans, and it came shockingly out of the blue, without a gradual escalation. Maybe the next one will be a coordinated strike by a thousand terrorists killing hundreds of thousands of imporant Americans and creating world chaos.
Drunk driving causes somewhere around 15,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries each year in the United States. How can that be overemphasized? Other than smoking and eating a bad diet (and MAYBE draconian gun control), there's really nothing else that even comes close in terms of the number of preventable deaths/injuries/illnesses.
First of all, 15,000 is roughly the same as the number of people who died in accidental falls alone. The USA is a big country, with a lot of people. Small risks add up to big accident numbers.
Secondly, the statistics on drunk driving are questionable precisely because of the demonization of this activity. Nobody works to tighten those statistics down in the name of accuracy, because big scary numbers help convince people that drunk driving is unforgivable.
It's like the discussion we've got going in the Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize topic. Most of the people agree that global warming is real, most agree that Al Gore presented bad information, but many are still willing to praise him and promote his bad information because its exaggeration has the potential to shock the insensitive masses into action.
Once people start feeling righteous, they excuse themselves and those who support their cause for dishonesty. They feel no need to critically examine evidence for distortion or exaggeration.
In this specific case, one neo-prohibitionist organization (MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving - a substantial corporate entity not actually run by mothers) is quietly known to spread dishonest propaganda, but still treated with great respect.
Furthermore, in this specific case, any accident in which any involved person (whether driver-at-fault, driver-not-at-fault, passenger, or pedestrian) has an elevated blood alcohol level or other evidence of alcohol consumption is considered as "alcohol-related".
If a drunk man stumbles into traffic and dies, that is called an alcohol-related automobile accident, it counts toward the 15,000, and organizations like MADD blame it on drunk driving.
If a stone-cold sober designated driver is transporting his drunk friends home, hits the ditch while talking on his cell phone and not wearing his seatbelt, and dies (but his drunk friends live), that is called an alcohol-related automobile accident, it counts toward the 15,000 deaths, and organizations like MADD blame it on drunk driving.
Try to reconcile these official statistics:
"The 17,126 alcohol-related fatalities in 1996 (40.9 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year)"
"Intoxication rates for drivers in fatal crashes in 1996 were 30.3 percent for motorcycles, 21.9 percent for light trucks, 18.8 percent for passenger cars, and 1.4 percent for large trucks."
Source: http://www.usroads.com/journals/aruj/9803/ru980303.htm
Notice that "alcohol-related fatalities" are around 40%, while "intoxication rates for drivers" is around 20%, once we weed out the disproportionate and irrelevant (to the matter of drinking and driving conventional vehicles) contribution of drunk cyclists.
There's about a 100% exaggeration there. Drinking and driving is only half of "alcohol related" car accidents, by official statistics.
(When it comes to non-fatal accidents, only 7% are "alcohol related".)
Thirdly, while about 40% of traffic deaths are "alcohol related" and about 20% can reasonably be called a result of drunk driving, in over 60% of driver or passenger fatalities, the deceased was not wearing a seatbelt, and about 30% involved speeding.
(I have thought of an interesting factor: drunk riding may also be quite dangerous due to tendency to do stupid things like distract the driver, and not wear a seatbelt. It may also put pressure on the driver's schedule by giving him additional tasks to complete in the same time, encouraging him to speed. Considering the statistics, drunk riding may cause a similar number of deaths to drunk driving, but there are probably also a lot more drunk rider than drunk drivers.)
Drunk driving can be a reasonable, risk-conscious decision, in some circumstances. So can jumping out of a third-story window. So can amputating your arm. It's silly to bring up these hypothetical statements; we can all make up such situations and we'll never get anywhere. No matter how you argue, the end fact is that essentially all drunk driving is unnecessary, and that any drunk driving (i.e. over the legal limit) increases the chances of an accident by a factor which, depending on how you measure it, is between 3-5X to dozens of times.
This is another questionable statistic. There is no way to know how many people are driving drunk and not getting caught or getting in an accident. This is a case where active human deception is involved - there is no way to correct for it. You can set a floor (minimum) on the amount of drunk driving, but not a reasonable ceiling. Without knowing how much drunk driving is actually going on, you can't put a number on the increase in risk.
However, let us suppose they've made a good educated guess, and a moderate drinker who drives increases the risk fivefold, while a really drunk guy who stumbles into his car increases the risk fiftyfold. (these seem like reasonable numbers to me, for a couple of arbitrary points on a curve)
If driving home moderately intoxicated makes you 5 times more likely to get into an accident (which sounds reasonable to me), what makes this more irresponsible than soberly driving a distance 5 times longer?
Compare driving all the way across town to Wal-Mart (25 miles) and back (25 more) to save $20 on a purchase vs. having a few beers then driving home (10 miles) to save $20 on taxi fare.
For that matter, compare driving all the way across town and back to drop off your lightly intoxicated friend before returning to your home near the bar, then picking him up in the morning and taking him to pick up his car. By having 2 people in the vehicle you increase the risk of fatality by having more people who can die. By making 4 back-and-forth trips yourself, 2 with a passenger, and him making the same trip sober the next day anyway, you've increased the risk over his single trip (if it was made sober) by more than 5 times.
This is an example where you, as a responsible friend who insists on giving a ride to your buddy who has been drinking, may increase the risk of a traffic accident over what it would be by just letting him drink and drive.
By considering drunk driving absolutely evil, and driving sober absolutely an acceptable risk, you've distorted your reasoning process to prefer the greater danger in a common situation.
(This is to say nothing of wasted time, gas, and vehicle wear.)
Yes, driving is inherently dangerous. But looked at from a cost/benefit point of view, getting rid of drunk driving is really the number one thing we can do to make the whole process of driving safer. Ending drunk driving should honestly be one of the easiest things society can do to reduce the number of preventable deaths.
Your argument about the person who slept poorly and is distracted being more dangerous on the roads is valid, and that person carries some amount of blame for those things that he could have controlled which might make his commute riskier. There is time and effort devoted to keeping sleepy people off the roads, but the impact of this practice is an order of magnitude or more less than that of drunk driving. The amount of emphasis should scale with the risk. And in no case does this argument have anything to do with what we should or shouldn't allow with respect to drunk driving.
The more important reason why your argument, while technically correct and well-stated, is not all that relevant, is that you are arguing from a position of sober clarity. Your argument is that a reasonable person can sometimes decide that driving drunk is not so bad and won't excessively increase the risk of an accident. Of course, the person making the decision is drunk, so you can't rely on their ability to reason whatsoever. This is why drunk driving laws exist; we can't afford to allow drunk people to make such an important decision. There is no "mature perspective" to be developed by a drunk person who's trying to get home.
The mature perspective is for our soberly considered reactions and policies toward drinking and driving.
There are around 100 DUI arrests for every alcohol-related fatality. How many licenses are lost? How many jobs are lost? How many lives are ruined? How much damage is done to the economy? How many suicides result? What risks are taken for the purposes of avoiding the police?
What about 5X danger vs. 5X distance when you insist on giving your friend a ride?
What about designated drivers taking sexual advantage of their drunk female passengers? (if you prioritize preventing drunk driving over preventing unfamiliar men from being alone with drunk women, statistically you're guaranteed to get some rapes and other abuse)
Most of all: what about the de-emphasis of the dangers of driving, and the dangers of getting drunk, due to the demonization of drunk driving?
It is just not that simple. We need to maintain a balanced perspective. We need to be realistic and fair to get the best outcome. We need to be rational, not emotional.
Not to mention that people who end up in a situation, drunk, and where they have no way home other than drunk driving are generally less able to make responsible decisions than are the general public.
Exactly. Many habitual drunk drivers who get in accidents are generally irresponsible people, alcoholics, criminals, and thoughtless bad drivers with poorly-maintained cars (which may have problems with steering, braking, lighting, signalling, the danger of tires blowing out, etc.). They drive extremely drunk and would never consider factoring their level of intoxication into the decision.
Their outcomes are basically irrelevant to the decisions of normal people, but like the drunk motorcyclists, and the drunk passengers, their distorting statistics get lumped in.
How many non-alcoholic drunk drivers with no criminal record under the influence of no other drugs driving properly-maintained vehicles who have never been at fault in any other accidents are the at-fault driver in traffic fatalities?
Now there is a statistic I'd like to know. It's hard to get this kind of narrowed-down information in the current maximalist atmosphere, though. Another danger of demonization: nobody wants to dig for evidence that shows a reduced risk, and even if someone does dig it up, nobody wants to help disseminate it, and even if it does get around, nobody wants to repeat it in public and apply it to policy decisions.
If it was a very low number, that would change things, wouldn't it? It wouldn't make drunk driving a good idea, but it might make the millions of DUI arrests and severe penalties in low risk cases hard to justify.
In truth, do designated drivers save lives by preventing drunk driving, or do they destroy more lives by giving people an excuse to drink without restraint, thereby risking drunken fist-fights, sexual misbehavior, the development of alcoholism, alcohol poisoning, deciding to take other drugs, accidental falls, riding while drunkenly interfering with the driver, and even more severe drunken driving because the designated driver is temporarily unavailable, and at such a severe level of intoxication, the drinker who planned to catch a ride home no longer can reason clearly enough to hold to his decision not to drive?
Like I said, it's complicated. And this post is waaay too long and equivocal. Sorry.
|
Get back on topic.
I wanna read stories about being close to death not 4 pages of your crap argument.
|
really good arguments there funchucks. Although I still think getting a taxi is better than driving drunk anyday....
BACK TO NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES 
|
you guys should join MADD rofl
|
On October 15 2007 12:47 Smurg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2007 12:35 gameguard wrote:On October 15 2007 11:28 TesisMech wrote:
he thinks the only way to get on a car accident when your drunk is when you passed out on the wheel rofl ignorant idiot oh stfu. You beleive the world is 6000 years old. You have no right to call ANYONE ignorant. And yes, I am very certain that I would not crash my car due to physical impairment unless I was shitfaced drunk, in which case I would not drive. All you euros talkin shit can shove it too. Im not gona start a social revolution or something. Obviously whatever I say wont change a damned thing in your minds so I'm dropping it. Dude, I hope you can see how fucking far in the wrong you are. The reason whatever you say won't change a thing in our minds is because what you're saying is so despicably retarded.
I was refering to your closed minded bullshit. Believe it or not, different societies have different norms. You euros never drink and drive (suposedly), good for you. Over here, it happens all the time. I am not saying drunk driving is a good thing. No one in their right mind will say that. Its just a consequence of going out and drinking, and like funchucks pointed out, its not as bad as people make it out to be. Its the retards who speed, run red lights and swerve around that scew the statistics.
Baal expressed my thoughts pretty accurately. I consider myself responsible enough to drive safely home when I had a moderate amount of alcohol. Responsible drunk driving might sound ridiculous, but there is such a thing. If you consider the empty roads at such an hour, I would even go as far as to say that I was not increasing the risks for an accident.
Funchucks came up with some interesting thoughts in his post (especially the bit about drunk riding lol. I have experience with this). Although I wouldn't go as far as to say that a designated driver could increase the risks, it makes perfect sense in theory. To take his statistics analysis a bit furthur, you could factor in the ratio of normal driving vs drunk driving. Lets say drunk driving consists of 5% of all driving time. If we take the 20% as an estimate of increased risk, 5% of those were merely due to chance. Im sure its actually alot less than 5%... maybe even an insignificant amount, but these kind of things are never considered when theses statistics are thrown aruond.
|
I agree with Smurg here. Thinking that drink driving is OK just in America is proof that your personality is usually like this or that you are just arguing a pointless argument: Is drink driving safe or not safe? I think you know who the winner of the argument is.
|
Is there seriously anyone here that actually drinks and has never driven drunk? I can understand the anger at gameguard since he actually got in a crash but where do you think all those cars at clubs, bars, parties, etc. go? The majority of people driving those cars are probably at least a little drunk.
I wonder how many of the saints jumping on gameguard and charliemurphy have even been in a situation where there's not much other choice but to drive drunk? And how many are just hypocrites? I'm not arguing over the safety of the practice. I just think some of idiots wishing paralyzation and death on gameguard need to stop being so childish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
