Have you ever almost Died? - Page 8

On October 15 2007 17:07 boghat wrote:
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.

On October 15 2007 17:18 Bockit wrote:


I do drink and I don't drive if I've been drinking. The limit here is 0.05 but atm I'm on a 0.0 limit (4 more months till I'm on 0.05) and I'd treat it the same once I get there. I've walked past my car with my keys in my pocket at 6am in the morning at the train station, feeling semi-sober but knowing that really I'm not and walking home from the station instead of entering my car (1 hour walk).

It's simple really, if you're going out you organise transport home. If you can't do that and still want to go out, put up with it and fucking walk before you kill some innocent bystander thinking that you are still able to drive safely.

On October 15 2007 19:22 Red_Dragon wrote:
There is a memory in my life I wish I didn`t have. I was about 8 when it happened. Me and my best friend at that time were going home from school, at one moment he said to me get down on your knees. I thought he was going to show something to me or we are going to play Suddenly he kicked me with his leg in nose and broke it. Can clearly remember it after all those years. Blood all over my jumper, pants and hands as I was trying to cover my nose. The road has been covered in snow because it was winter. I have lost a lot of blood and went into shock. There was nothing I could do, couldn`t stand up (as I laid there), couldn`t call for help or anything. Fortunately the neighbor came across and had helped me. Hadn`t he been there I would not be alive today.

On October 15 2007 14:49 rushz0rz wrote:
Get back on topic.
I wanna read stories about being close to death not 4 pages of your crap argument.

On October 15 2007 19:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
if you live in the usa and there's no way for you to come home after clubbing without driving drunk you shouldnt go clubbing
its as easy as that

for me its never been even the slightest problem cause there are always cabs available and busses are driving until 4 am on friday and saturday night and well, now I live 10-15 minutes walking distance from every pub or club worth visiting in trondheim. :D

On October 15 2007 17:07 boghat wrote:
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.

On October 14 2007 08:35 soybomb wrote:
exactly.
it is an "accepted" fact that most in america will drink and drive because, get this, most in america are in fact, accepted as idiots. you are but +one on the equation.
obviously, if the next time someone drinks and drive and they kill someone, they will probably change their attitude. unfortunately, this is what it will actually take for most people to change their mindset on the subject of drinking and driving.

back to the intended question: i cant really recall the last time ive almost died. i guess maybe getting a sprained neck and having a concussion from a football incident. it was a jr. high scrimmage and after the play ended, someone came from behind and took me down. i blacked out when he hit me and woke up from hitting the ground, or at least on the ground thinking "damn this sucks." so i didnt move and an ambulance took me to the hospital where i then labeled myself a person not very tolerant of pain.

On October 16 2007 05:20 CharlieMurphy wrote:


Ok by your logic, who cares if all us idiots kill ourselves then right? The world is overpopulated anyways.

On October 15 2007 20:11 baal wrote:


its not like you to make useless posts Eri, read what has been said about it and then debate those ideas... do you even own a car?

On October 15 2007 12:35 gameguard wrote:


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 13:53 Funchucks wrote:
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.)

<SNIP>

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.

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.

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.

On October 16 2007 05:35 Clutch3 wrote:


What does it matter whether he owns a car? Baal, I am pretty sure I've driven more miles in my life than you have (without so much as a fender bender, I might add), does that mean I can tell you to just shut up?

His post is totally relevant to the situation. You know full well how easy/difficult it will be to get home from wherever you are going. If you can't do it without driving drunk, you shouldn't do it. Maybe you are a safe driver even if you've had a few, but that's no reason to be such a dickhead (I know it comes naturally to you) about the overall issue of people driving drunk. To be more specific: Do you agree or disagree that drunk drivers cause tens of thousands of deaths per year? If yes, do you think it should be legal? Where do you draw the line? As Funchucks and other people have pointed out, it's all a matter of statistics and probabilities. Are you saying you've never in your life been so fucked up that you couldn't drive safely??