On 26-3-2009 22:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:53:46 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>> while drinking no
>> though was given on how to get home safe.
> 
> The argument can be made that thought was given.  In my case I knew I 
> wasn't in any condition to drive, so I didn't.  Hey, been there, done 
> that, swore never again.  So I waited (about an hour as I recall) until I 
> was in a condition that allowed me to drive safely.

I hope that would mean that you only drunk 2 glasses of beer or 
something like that? You know there is a difference between somebody 
thinking they can safely drive and the legal limit. For good reasons.

> If I'd given no thought on how to get "home" (ie, to my hotel) safely, 
> then I would've just started driving instead of saying "no, I'm not going 
> to because it wouldn't be safe".

I was of course referring to the time before you started drinking, not 
after.

(BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as I 
have never drunk alcohol at all.)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:52:14 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 26-3-2009 22:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:53:46 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>> while drinking no
>>> though was given on how to get home safe.
>> 
>> The argument can be made that thought was given.  In my case I knew I
>> wasn't in any condition to drive, so I didn't.  Hey, been there, done
>> that, swore never again.  So I waited (about an hour as I recall) until
>> I was in a condition that allowed me to drive safely.
> 
> I hope that would mean that you only drunk 2 glasses of beer or
> something like that? 

A couple of margaritas over the course of a large dinner.  For me that 
normally isn't "too much".  They mixed them stronger than I thought they 
would, and this became apparent when I got up to head back to the hotel.

> You know there is a difference between somebody
> thinking they can safely drive and the legal limit. For good reasons.

Uh, yeah, I do know that.  I don't drink excessively, but I do like a 
drink now and then.  And I tend to be *extremely* aware when I'm too 
inebriated to drive, because, as I said, I made the mistake of driving 
under the influence before and it scared the ever-living-shit out of me 
when I got up the next morning and wasn't sure how I'd gotten home.

Oh, and I've got a cousin who did time in prison for vehicular 
manslaughter as a result of DUI.  I'm *painfully* aware of the 
consequences of making a bad error in judgment about being too impaired  
to drive (for whatever reason, be it drink or sleep deprivation).

>> If I'd given no thought on how to get "home" (ie, to my hotel) safely,
>> then I would've just started driving instead of saying "no, I'm not
>> going to because it wouldn't be safe".
> 
> I was of course referring to the time before you started drinking, not
> after.

Yeah, well, before I started on my two drinks at the restaurant I knew my 
tolerances and knew that I normally could handle two of that particular 
drink with a large meal and be able to operate the car fine.  After 
having the drinks and realizing that they mixed them about 4x as strong 
as any normal establishment would have done, I opted to not drive until I 
was safely able to.

The fact that I opted to sit in the car with the AC blasting was to keep 
me from falling asleep while the effects of the alcohol wore off.  I 
certainly didn't want to wake up the next morning still in the parking 
lot.

> (BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as I
> have never drunk alcohol at all.)

You're probably not in a very good position to comment, then. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27-3-2009 1:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:52:14 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 

>> (BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as I
>> have never drunk alcohol at all.)
> 
> You're probably not in a very good position to comment, then. ;-)

I knew I knew that, but wasn't sure if you did. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:56:24 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 27-3-2009 1:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:52:14 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> (BTW I don't know if you are aware that this is easy for me to say as
>>> I have never drunk alcohol at all.)
>> 
>> You're probably not in a very good position to comment, then. ;-)
> 
> I knew I knew that, but wasn't sure if you did. ;)

LOL, fair enough. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 3/26/2009 12:53 PM, andrel wrote:
> There are two sides to this and Jim's case. On the on hand you might
> argue that it is technically not driving on the other hand while
> drinking no though was given on how to get home safe. As an incentive to
> think next time before you start drinking and there is no one to take
> you home it might just work.

At the very least, it should be classified separately from DUI (Driving 
Under the Influence), if for no other reason than to show our 
appreciation for the fact that they did, in fact, pull over.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:56:04 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> On 3/26/2009 12:53 PM, andrel wrote:
>> There are two sides to this and Jim's case. On the on hand you might
>> argue that it is technically not driving on the other hand while
>> drinking no though was given on how to get home safe. As an incentive
>> to think next time before you start drinking and there is no one to
>> take you home it might just work.
> 
> At the very least, it should be classified separately from DUI (Driving
> Under the Influence), if for no other reason than to show our
> appreciation for the fact that they did, in fact, pull over.

I would think that the applicable law would be *if* the person were 
intoxicated *and* making a nuisance of themselves, "public intoxication" 
or something similar would already cover it.

But we seem to have a penchant in the US for legislating every little 
thing.  They've just passed a law here in Utah (effective May 1) that 
makes it illegal to text while driving.  But the cops can't tell the 
difference between texting (illegal) and dialing a phone (legal) or 
reading a map (legal) or changing the CD in the car stereo (also legal).

What they *should* do in my opinion is not legislate that *texting* is 
illegal, but legislate that *reckless driving* is illegal *regardless* of 
the reason.

What the local news stations are saying is that the purpose of the law is 
to increase the penalties if, say, someone causes an accident while 
texting - if they were texting (and that can be proven by subpoenaing 
records from the phone company), then the fines get steeper.

I say it doesn't matter WHY they were driving recklessly - make the fines 
or other penalties high enough, and people will eventually get the 
picture.  And if you happen to be able to do these things responsibly and 
don't cause problems, then it's not a big deal.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I say it doesn't matter WHY they were driving recklessly - make the fines 
> or other penalties high enough, and people will eventually get the 
> picture. 

I disagree. Look at smoking pot, or teenagers sleeping with each other or 
sending naked pictures of themselves to their friends.

Clearly, smoking pot carries disproportionate penalties, yet does apparently 
nothing to reduce its prevalence.

And three cheers for spell checkers after a whiskey sour. Otherwise, this 
post would be illegible. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:32:19 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I say it doesn't matter WHY they were driving recklessly - make the
>> fines or other penalties high enough, and people will eventually get
>> the picture.
> 
> I disagree. Look at smoking pot, or teenagers sleeping with each other
> or sending naked pictures of themselves to their friends.
> 
> Clearly, smoking pot carries disproportionate penalties, yet does
> apparently nothing to reduce its prevalence.

Well, *most* of those illegal activities (with the possible exception of 
teens sleeping with each other) don't generally cause things like 
automobile accidents.  This is a generally different class of problem 
that we're talking about.

I think we've got enough laws to cover "reckless driving" without having 
to legislate "you can't eat a cheeseburger", "you can't talk on a phone", 
"you can't read a book".  Eventually we get to the point where someone 
does something the legislators didn't think of that's worse than all of 
those put together and then we have to watch our legislators argue about 
whether or not we should have a law that makes it illegal to, I don't 
know, pet puppies while driving.

It's just a waste of taxpayer money and legislator time.

That's what my point was, really.

> And three cheers for spell checkers after a whiskey sour. Otherwise,
> this post would be illegible. :-)

LOL.  My wife has a habit of writing on Livejournal after having had a 
bit to drink.  Her friends really enjoy those posts. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, *most* of those illegal activities (with the possible exception of 
> teens sleeping with each other) don't generally cause things like 
> automobile accidents.  This is a generally different class of problem 
> that we're talking about.

Fair dinkum.

> I think we've got enough laws to cover "reckless driving" without having 
> to legislate "you can't eat a cheeseburger", "you can't talk on a phone", 
> "you can't read a book".

I think part of the problem is that people are really bad at judging 
low-risk activities.  People wouldn't know that talking on the phone is 
dangerous if you didn't get the word out, and legislators get the word out 
by passing laws.

Granted, if you don't realize that trying to type a text message while you 
drive is dangerous, you're stupid, but...

I think that comes from when they pass laws saying "you can't talk on the 
phone", but people don't want to adjust their habits of doing work while 
driving.

> LOL.  My wife has a habit of writing on Livejournal after having had a 
> bit to drink.  Her friends really enjoy those posts. :-)

It's funky. I have no problem at all, but even one or two mouthfuls of wine 
are enough to multiply my typos several-fold. Clearly you can be impaired 
and not feel it in the least. Whether it's bad enough to ruin your driving 
depends on how well you drive before that, I guess.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:32:19 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>And three cheers for spell checkers after a whiskey sour

Whiskey sour Euch!

The only thing you should put in whisky is more whisky ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message