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

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:13:44 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

Ironically, I read what I wrote again and should clarify that I don't 
think teens sleeping together causes automobile accidents. ;-)

>> 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.

Well, I'd say that *some* people are really bad at judging low-risk 
activities.  But why penalize the rest of us for it?

For example, I tend to talk on the phone when I'm driving to and from the 
office (which happens about once every 2 weeks these days).  It's 90 
minutes on the road round-trip and generally a pretty boring drive.

So I'll talk to my mom or my wife while I'm driving home.  They know I'm 
in the car and paying attention to the traffic around me, and if I don't 
respond immediately it's because I'm dealing with something.

But I also have an effective way to divide my attention during that 
drive.  When I get into town, things change, so I tend to get off the 
phone, but on the freeway it's an entirely different matter.

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

Well, yeah, but at the same time, if I'm out driving (as I was today) and 
need to let my kid know we're on the way home, I'll ask my wife (who 
doesn't know how to use my phone to send text messages) to let me know 
when the light changes, and send him a message while I'm at the light.  
If I don't finish writing, fine, driving comes first.  But not while 
moving.

The new law in Utah would make that illegal.  However, the cops have no 
way of knowing that's what I'm doing.

> 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.

True.  Many people can multitask.  When someone schedules a meeting for 
7:30 AM, I'm not going to be in the office for it - not a chance that I'm 
up at 5:30 AM most mornings just so I can be to the office for an 7:30 AM 
meeting.  But if I have something I need to be to at 9, an hour meeting 
from 7:30 to 8:30 leaves me insufficient time to get there, so I'm very 
likely going to be on the call while I'm 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.

True.  And how well attuned you are to your own abilities and driving 
habits.

I've only once, for example, been so drunk that I couldn't remember what 
had happened (the time I got home and wasn't sure); but the memory did 
return after a few days (and let's just say I was damned lucky).  So I 
know my tolerance and I don't get anywhere near it now.

But I think a lot of people *use* drinking as an excuse to act stupid - 
even on that night when I didn't remember getting home, when I started to 
remember things the next day, I recalled that I still didn't do stupid 
things that were out of character for me (confirmed by the friends I was 
with).  And "stupid" is generally not in character for me.

Well, apart from "stupid" driving home - that was out of character, but I 
was still pretty young and didn't know my limits then as well as I do now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:13:13 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> 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 ;)

LOL

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Ironically, I read what I wrote again and should clarify that I don't 
> think teens sleeping together causes automobile accidents. ;-)

Not *automobile* accidents, no.  Parking While Intoxicated causes accidents.

> But I also have an effective way to divide my attention during that 
> drive.  When I get into town, things change, so I tend to get off the 
> phone, but on the freeway it's an entirely different matter.

How do you know?

> The new law in Utah would make that illegal.  However, the cops have no 
> way of knowing that's what I'm doing.

Then pull off to the side and do it. :-) Seems easy enough.

> likely going to be on the call while I'm driving.

At least here you get to have hands-free conversations. Not that it's all 
that much better.

>> 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.
> 
> True.  And how well attuned you are to your own abilities and driving 
> habits.

That, and how much room you leave, and etc. I'm not a very good driver any 
more, since I no longer commute very far if at all, but I'm smart enough to 
know that and leave plenty of space around myself, for example.

> I've only once, for example, been so drunk that I couldn't remember what 
> had happened 

I've never been that drunk. :-)

-- 
   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 29-3-2009 7:42, Jim Henderson wrote:

> I've only once, for example, been so drunk that I couldn't remember what 
> had happened (the time I got home and wasn't sure); but the memory did 
> return after a few days (and let's just say I was damned lucky).  So I 
> know my tolerance and I don't get anywhere near it now.

Long before you notice anything yourself your reaction time already goes 
up. You still feel the same and as long as nothing unexpected happens 
you are just as able to drive as always. One of the reasons why the 
alcohol limit is so low that most people think they could drink at least 
three more beer before they their driving is even minutely impaired is 
because of that. I.e. that people are unable to objectively look at 
themselves after consuming alcohol. Possibly because all the internal 
things you normally use to evaluate how well you are performing are 
slowed down by the same amount.

Post a reply to this message