|
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?
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.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
Wait, so people are against having 1 beer before driving as well? :s
|
On November 02 2009 02:10 biomedical wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2009 01:30 Kwark wrote:On November 01 2009 22:42 biomedical wrote:On November 01 2009 22:33 Kwark wrote:On November 01 2009 21:52 biomedical wrote: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. 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 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. yeah....try reading my post next time + Show Spoiler + point of my post was to clarify to people that "its a CERTAINTY that you WILL fuck up eventually" if you drink drive.
which is a much more reasonable demonstration than your babble about a tipsy person being as "responsible" as a very drunk person, which pretty much no one is going to listen to and you're just narrowing peoples thinking when you allow them to dismiss you like that.
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. i did say that. + Show Spoiler +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 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 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:Show nested quote +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? 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. 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 02:58 infinity21 wrote: Wait, so people are against having 1 beer before driving as well? :s Well, I personally believe that if you're under the limit, then seeing as how that is legal, go ahead. The limit is usually really low, though ' -'a
|
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 02:48 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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.
There's a difference between people that need medical help, and people that get behind the wheel when they are drunk... After all this time, when we know SOOO much about alcohol, any person that does this should be held responsible.
It's no different than getting drunk, and bringing out your gun on the street in a place in US where it's legal (like texas or w.e) and then shooting it all over the place...
A car is a fucking a weapon, using it when your judgment, motor-skills, sense are knowingly impaired is beyond just wreckless endangerment.
|
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)
is it okay to bring just 4 bullets in the gun you'll be waving recklessly around?
|
On November 02 2009 03:16 biomedical wrote:Show nested quote +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) is it okay to bring just 4 bullets in the gun you'll be waving recklessly around? If your body burns .12 BAC an hour and each drink is about .15 then for the night you have had .60 and you burn 5(.12)= .60 Then you are fine to drive, but that is only if you drank all four at 8pm....
so think about the situation before you make some extreme comparison.
|
Someone I KNEW, who was IN MY HOUSE
+ Show Spoiler +Killed his girlfriend in an alcohol-related accident about a month ago. There was 2 other people in the car, and they, including the driver, are in very bad condition in the hospital still.
He hit a pole going 70 Don't drink and drive. It's fucking stupid.
|
On November 02 2009 02:59 Valentine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2009 02:10 biomedical wrote:On November 02 2009 01:30 Kwark wrote:On November 01 2009 22:42 biomedical wrote:On November 01 2009 22:33 Kwark wrote:On November 01 2009 21:52 biomedical wrote: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. 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 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. yeah....try reading my post next time + Show Spoiler + point of my post was to clarify to people that "its a CERTAINTY that you WILL fuck up eventually" if you drink drive.
which is a much more reasonable demonstration than your babble about a tipsy person being as "responsible" as a very drunk person, which pretty much no one is going to listen to and you're just narrowing peoples thinking when you allow them to dismiss you like that.
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. i did say that. + Show Spoiler +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 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 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 eh, you sound like a troll. the mind boggles
On November 02 2009 02:48 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +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? 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?
how interestingly opinionated of you, i've seen plenty of threads where people have smartly argued similarly extreme punishments for drug offenders, equating it to murder. and threads where people believe drink driving should be legalised and controlled, letting drunk people drive "sensibly and slowly, within a special lane". not to mention the people who fully trust in their drink driving abillities. i guess it does boil down to a range of opinions after all??? well good luck trying to convince a drink driver of "your opinon". so incredibly niave...
|
oh god oh god oh god
i have to get out of here, sanity is slipping
|
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.
|
don't drink and drive, smoke and fly childrennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
or just play starcraft.
|
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) 1 drink an hour = you're okay to drive generally. unless you're a girl.
|
On November 02 2009 02:10 biomedical wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2009 01:30 Kwark wrote:On November 01 2009 22:42 biomedical wrote:On November 01 2009 22:33 Kwark wrote:On November 01 2009 21:52 biomedical wrote: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. 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 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. yeah....try reading my post next time + Show Spoiler + point of my post was to clarify to people that "its a CERTAINTY that you WILL fuck up eventually" if you drink drive.
which is a much more reasonable demonstration than your babble about a tipsy person being as "responsible" as a very drunk person, which pretty much no one is going to listen to and you're just narrowing peoples thinking when you allow them to dismiss you like that.
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. i did say that. + Show Spoiler +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 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
I'm sorry sir, I admire your intentions but I don't think you understand statistics. You have a 1 in about 600.000 shot of being struck by lightning. Most of us do, yet a lot of people live their whole life without being struck. So no, it's not something that will happen no matter what. If you do something 100 times, with a chance of 1% of it going wrong, it will probably not go wrong, because the odds are too small. Your comparison with poker players is also shaky, since a poker player will always bet when the odds are strong that he will win. Show me an experienced poker player that would back down from a 90% chance of win, because the 10% is bound to happen sometime. If they do, it's definitely not because of the odds.
So if you want to convince people to not drink and drive, don't explain to them that it will surely happen, simply ask if it's worth risking his/her life or the life of the people they love over something as dumb as that.
|
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. 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.
Anyway, I have tried drunk driving once (a few years ago, had just gotten my license). Never again. I live faaar away from any population, in the middle of the forest pretty much. So in my defense, the only risk involved was me and wild animals. 7km away from the closest town, and the closest neighbor is 1km away. Only went for a 500 meter trip at 3am, just because I wanted to try it for once.
You really need to focus intensely to stay on the damn road... Scary as hell.
|
On November 02 2009 06:40 Captain Mayhem wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
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
|
Don't drink and drive. Don't make fucking retarded equations to try explain bad drivers. *Exits thread*
|
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.
More like, "ooh I drink/get high and drive all the time. I am going to get raped in this thread (so i better stay out of this one)"
|
On November 02 2009 06:55 lMPERVlOUS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2009 06:40 Captain Mayhem wrote: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. 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. 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
Heh, that's kinda true, but it depends on the person too. I'd rather be driven by one of my male friends after he had 5+ beers than by one of my female friends after she had one beer. Not because the girl is a worse driver, but because she gets way drunker after one beer than my male friend does after 6. Yes, I took specific examples but you get my point.
|
|
|
|