I'm such a twat

[TheShadowMan]

Originally Posted by Rids

The debate (at least from my point of view) has never been that drink driving isnt wrong. I just dont see it as being anywhere close to as bad a crime as you all make it out to be.

Do you asnyone who has ever been hurt in a car accident by a drunk driver?

Go tell them your opinion, if you can't work out how stupid you sound and completely niave i think i some spare razor blades i can give you, and u can just end it right here.

The world doesn't need dickheads like you ****ing scumbag

[queball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

There is the argument that if someone wants to be killed than they can kill themselves, whereas raping yourself is a fairly difficult task to accomplish. Of course certain people might want to be killed by being run over by a car but then again we're into percentages. As well as that I think the people in the scenarios you mentioned might have other overriding reasons, or possibly they enjoy being near to death but don't actually want to die.

But the crime in drink driving isn't just that of killing people, it's (perhaps) intentionally imposing a risk of being killed on other people. Well, people are also charged with murder or manslaughter, but if you're talking about rights (as always) it would be slightly extreme to say you can only defend yourself against someone who is 100% certain to kill you or has already killed you. People certainly will a risk of death upon themselves. As for percentages, are you saying there is a majority of people who actually want to be raped (above just fantasies)?

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by acropolis

links me to an accident involving someone with less than a 0.1 BAP

ta

Pick a pile up any pile up.

Construct your points better.

Originally Posted by acropolis

this is also true for alcohol yes?the 'six times' statistic is also made up though.

it's an impossible statistic to know without knowing at any given moment what percentage of all drivers are drunk. which no one knows.

you could estimate what percentage, but then you are calculating a statistic from something made up, which is the same as making it up.

you could also estimate how much more likely someone is to get in an accident by modeling using the slowing of reaction time. but that's just making it up too.

I'm sure the goverment doesn't invest millions of our taxes into anti drink-driving campaigns each year cause they have too much money in the budget left and needed to throw it somewhere.

I'm also sure that car insurance especially for those in the age brackets most likely to drink and drive is sky high cause the insurer's think they can get away with it.



Canada has much tighter restrictions on it's sale of alcohol from what I've noticed, Much more dangerous driving conditions, much less of a pub/lad culture.

Result? Piss all deaths on the road from irresponsible driving in proportion to the UK.

Now I could spend ages scouring through published police reports on stats and figures about the alochol levels found in the bodies of all drivers that die each year that were responsible for the crashes (and also the ones they luckily live from) and shove it square up your asa and make you twist on it, as it is I've got to go out

So toodles.

[Tomkat]

Thing is, I told the police how much I'd had (2 pints in an 8 hour period). And they said "Are you sure you haven't had more?" and I replied "no, positive".

So what should I do? Just apologise as much as possible, and say I won't drink anything at all (even half a pint or whatever) if I intend to drive?

This is like a bad dream. I'd understand if I had drunk too much, and driven. But I didn't.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

could of

could have

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

could of

could have

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Your

You're

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Your

You're

Originally Posted by Lupin

loose

lose

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

your

you're

Originally Posted by Rids

your

you're

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Your

You're

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

your

you're

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

your

you're

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

But the crime in drink driving isn't just that of killing people, it's (perhaps) intentionally imposing a risk of being killed on other people. Well, people are also charged with murder or manslaughter, but if you're talking about rights (as always) it would be slightly extreme to say you can only defend yourself against someone who is 100% certain to kill you or has already killed you. People certainly will a risk of death upon themselves. As for percentages, are you saying there is a majority of people who actually want to be raped (above just fantasies)?

But there are many things that (intentionally) impose a risk of being killed on other people. The argument for drink driving has to be either that it's more like likely to kill someone or it's not necessary. Clearly the necessity argument is fairly ridiculous in most cases (yeah well making butter isn't necessary so why don't we just ban it cos increased cholesterol leads to heart disease rite?) So we're left with the question of what percentage do we consider high enough before we ban drink driving. Personally I don't consider the likelihood of being killed by a random drunk driver to be nearly the same as being killed by the angry black man with a gun in your face who's demanding you empty the cash register. Risking death is not the same as desiring death. There might easily be something in coming "close" to death which is desireable. This doesn't directly imply that dying itself is desireable to you if coming close to death is. Finally, I'm obviously not claiming that. I'm not here arguing for the decriminalisation of rape, I'm merely pointing out that drink driving can easily be construed as worse than rape.

[IncubusGod]

Nondescript Human: Congratuations! You've just won the Humourless Pedant of the Year Award!

For services correcting peoples grammer in a heated debate with fast typing, you have demonstrated your status as King Knob!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Thing is, I told the police how much I'd had (2 pints in an 8 hour period). And they said "Are you sure you haven't had more?" and I replied "no, positive".

So what should I do? Just apologise as much as possible, and say I won't drink anything at all (even half a pint or whatever) if I intend to drive?

This is like a bad dream. I'd understand if I had drunk too much, and driven. But I didn't.

Promise that in future you won't go over the legal limit. I also support beating the system so if you need to lie feel free to do so.

[acropolis]

aight. datas and things.

given this set of data:
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/ann...ol-table-1.pdf

where would you put the legal limit?

i find it kinder obvious, but i don't think that's quite enough info to be really definitive.

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

I'm sure the goverment doesn't invest millions of our taxes into anti drink-driving campaigns each year cause they have too much money in the budget left and needed to throw it somewhere.

the government also spends millions each year to tell that condoms have big holes that let the EVUL AIDSES through and that the pill never works and gives you cancer.

i.e., the goverment tells people what special interest groups tell it to tell people.

anyway, drunk driving is a huge cause of accidents, so it's an obvious thing to try and fight. but people aren't going to treat an issue with such emotion and anger involved with any rationality, so when some random scientist proposes a model saying that

"the chance of an accident based on blood alcohol % is as follows:
A = a * e^(tx),

where a and t are constants and x is the BAP"

knee jerks immediately look and say "we should make the legal limit negative, because then we can prevent even more accidents!" and all logic is out the window.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by acropolis

aight. datas and things.

given this set of data:
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/ann...ol-table-1.pdf

where would you put the legal limit?

Given that data, I'd put the limit at .12 (120).

The US limit varies by state, but most states are now at .08 due to federal disincentives for states which are above that limit.

anyway, drunk driving is a huge cause of accidents, so it's an obvious thing to try and fight. but people aren't going to treat an issue with such emotion and anger involved with any rationality, so when some random scientist proposes a model saying that

"the chance of an accident based on blood alcohol % is as follows:
A = a * e^(tx),

where a and t are constants and x is the BAP"

knee jerk immediately look and say "we should make the legal limit negative, because then we can prevent even more accidents!" and all logic is out the window.

To paraphrase another slogan, government and logic don't mix.

[Quazi Starbucks]

Driving without the amold is a very silly idea, that includes drink driving, driving while high on weed, lsd, coke crack, fingering the woman next you you's pussy, driving with a mobile phone

all stupid things that COULD cause accidents, anyone who does them is stupid

[queball]

amold?

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

So last night I went out, and then drove home.

I got stopped by the police for drink driving. They've impounded my car until this evening, and I don't know what's going to happen.

I'm going to be so pissed off if I lose my licence.

I'm such a dick

you will loose your license, and you will get a big fat fine

way to go

[Knight Theamion]

dont drink and drive, ever

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

But there are many things that (intentionally) impose a risk of being killed on other people. The argument for drink driving has to be either that it's more like likely to kill someone or it's not necessary. Clearly the necessity argument is fairly ridiculous in most cases (yeah well making butter isn't necessary so why don't we just ban it cos increased cholesterol leads to heart disease rite?)

The most similar argument is the one over health and safety vs smoking in pubs, bars and the like.

The ability to drive is something that is given, by license, from the government, and innumerate restrictions are in place to enforce the safety of this jolly function, because most vehicular accidents are likely to injure other people, not just the person at fault. Butter, on the other hand, won't kill anyone who doesn't voluntarily eat it.

Unless of course you're being force fed butter.

[JonnyBGood]

So seeing that you can find an example, can you admit there is no absolute difference and it really is merely a matter of probability and percentages?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So seeing that you can find an example, can you admit there is no absolute difference and it really is merely a matter of probability and percentages?

God knows, I didn't bother to read the rest of the argument.

[JonnyBGood]

Frankly I'm just amazed I have an argument.

[JammyJim]

i hope you lose your car and your license
and i hope your imprisoned for 6 months.
and fined

and spat on

[queball]

you're

[JonnyBGood]

not that funny

[queball]

old man I knew when I was young are you?

[JonnyBGood]

Did you know that a question mark doesn't necessarily indicate the end of a sentence? True story.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

i hope you lose your car and your license
and i hope your imprisoned for 6 months.
and fined

and spat on

I vote JJ for another 4 year term in office (as admin).

[queball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Did you know that a question mark doesn't necessarily indicate the end of a sentence? True story.

if she is a duck, she's a douches, and when she has a feherbour snot her fault, now is it? artstouchups, funny you're grinning at, fancy you're in her yet, Fanny Urinia.

[1-X]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

i hope you lose your car and your license
and i hope your imprisoned for 6 months.
and fined

and spat on

didn't you have a thread about driving way over the speed limit the other day? How come one type of dangerous driving makes someone the scum of the earth while another is something to boast about?

[Nodrog]

Why is driving after 2-3 pints more likely to cause an accident than driving while tired, stressed, or highly emotional?

Nondescript Human, I applaud what you are doing and I may perhaps nominate you for post of the week.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Why is driving after 2-3 pints more likely to cause an accident than driving while tired, stressed, or highly emotional?

They're not but you can't measure most of the latter things easily and laws generally try and remain practical.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The ability to drive is something that is given, by license, from the government, and innumerate restrictions are in place to enforce the safety of this jolly function, because most vehicular accidents are likely to injure other people, not just the person at fault. Butter, on the other hand, won't kill anyone who doesn't voluntarily eat it.
.

From which part of 'protecting the rights of citizens' does a government derive the power to operate roads, let alone issue 'licenses' allowing people to drive on them?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

if she is a duck, she's a douches, and when she has a feherbour snot her fault, now is it? artstouchups, funny you're grinning at, fancy you're in her yet, Fanny Urinia.

I would beg to see your arms raised in calcification towards the expanding horizon as the minutemen stand before me with their phallic gums aimed and loaded.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by 1-X

didn't you have a thread about driving way over the speed limit the other day? How come one type of dangerous driving makes someone the scum of the earth while another is something to boast about?

Cause speed limits are notoriously banal, if you still keep a safe enough breaking distance and you are perfectly sober then you aren't going to cause an accident.

That said lots of people drive within the speed limits and don't keep a safe enough breaking distance and cause accidents.

Totally different things imo....

For example Isle of Man has no speed limits on roads out of town and you don't read anything about 500 car deaths a year cause of it (lol 500 people on the isle of man to start with would be good lol).

Every country has seperate speed limits, and while speeding shouldn't be ENCOURAGED it isn't a crime, it's as much a crime imo as someone running down a street, he could knock over an elderly lady etc etc.

However even the best drivers will be compromised by alcohol making them dangerous at the wheel.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

From which part of 'protecting the rights of citizens' does a government derive the power to operate roads, let alone issue 'licenses' allowing people to drive on them?

Actually over here the government builds them so I guess they do own them. Of course they built them using my taxes but frankly I don't really want 400 yards of tarmac.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

They're not but you can't measure most of the latter things easily and laws generally try and remain practical.

Tbh though they already have tachometers installed on long haulage vehicles for this sort of problem of truckers driving too much and getting tired at the wheel. You drive in excess of x amount of hours straight/in a day you get your long haulage license revoked etc.

Just to back up dante's point here.

[Obliterate]

"It takes less than you might think to become a drink driver."

Don't drink and drive.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

From which part of 'protecting the rights of citizens' does a government derive the power to operate roads, let alone issue 'licenses' allowing people to drive on them?

They own them because they added value to the land handed to them by god.

[TheBerk]

sunday... what a load of crap.... speed limits are there for a damn reason, and i believe the post 1-X refers to was something about overtaking cars and racing another driver... that doesnt seem safe on a public road to me, specially when you consider bends in the road, what if someone has broken down, got out of their car, and you are still going fast (even if youve slowed down for the corner it aint gonna be enough), i suppose thats safe then

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

They own them because they added value to the land handed to them by god.

Who is 'they'?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Who is 'they'?

The government in practice. "The people" in theory.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The government in practice. "The people" in theory.

The Highways Agency or local authorities, who do represent the people in the same kind of way as a company represents its owners.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Given that data, I'd put the limit at .12 (120).

The US limit varies by state, but most states are now at .08 due to federal disincentives for states which are above that limit.

To paraphrase another slogan, government and logic don't mix.

yeah.

all I'm really saying is that while

Virtually every study has shown that most of the drinking and driving problem is caused by the very drunk, not the slightly drunk

, it is also true that

there's some evidence that a 0.08 definition of legal intoxication has a general deterrent effect

and so it is understandable that they make that law even though it is not dangerous to break.

BUT

Noting that the law exists in that form purely for psychological effect, it seems stupid of people to have such visceral anger towards someone who broke a law that exists purely for its psychological effect.

That's all.

[Tomkat]

I have my court hearing tomorrow.

The fact I only had one pint so thought I wasn't over the limit doesn't make much difference apparently, as when you're drunk you're drunk.

The Centenier (Jersey thing, a senior police officer who volunteers for the job) said I'd probably get a 12 months ban on my licence, as that's standard. Unless I'm lucky, and get a decent advocate tomorrow.

Oh well.

Got the bike out today, all ready to ride for when I can't use my car

[Rids]

12 month ban? Where the hell do you live?

[LHC]

Jersey by the looks of that post.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Jersey

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Rids

12 month ban? Where the hell do you live?

Yah they should of ripped his license up and forced him to resit it after at least 12 months.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by acropolis

Noting that the law exists in that form purely for psychological effect, it seems stupid of people to have such visceral anger towards someone who broke a law that exists purely for its psychological effect.

It seems like the psychological effect is working then.

[1-X]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I have my court hearing tomorrow.

The fact I only had one pint so thought I wasn't over the limit doesn't make much difference apparently, as when you're drunk you're drunk.

The Centenier (Jersey thing, a senior police officer who volunteers for the job) said I'd probably get a 12 months ban on my licence, as that's standard. Unless I'm lucky, and get a decent advocate tomorrow.

Oh well.

Got the bike out today, all ready to ride for when I can't use my car

good luck with your hearing

being slightly and unintentionally over the limit and driving at 2am, first offence, no accident caused, genuine remorse etc wouldn't be a ban if I was the judge, just some penalty points and a bitch of a fine

[KoeN]

if you're driving, don't drink....and if you're drinking, don't drive...

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Nondescript Human: Congratuations! You've just won the Humourless Pedant of the Year Award!

For services correcting peoples grammer in a heated debate with fast typing, you have demonstrated your status as King Knob!

No, if I was correcting people's grammatical mistakes caused by fast typing, it would have taken a lot of scrolling to read past my post. All I pointed out were the bloody annoying recurrent corruptions of the English language.

[Tomkat]

Got the minimum sentence as I was very cooperative and nice to the police.

So 12 months without my licence. Could be worse I guess.

The judge was quite sound too.

Pretty annoyed I only had 2 pints, but hey. If you're drunk you're drunk.

Better it happened this way than if I'd hit someone in the road.

And at least now I am forced to use my bike, and can get fit <3