Jump to content



Photo

Smiling Drunk driver now not smiling anymore after being charged with manslaughter


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#41 Patriotsfatboy1

Patriotsfatboy1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 37,416 posts

Posted 22 May 2018 - 09:33 AM

 

:thumbsup:

 

Distracted driving can certainly be treated as negligence if an accident has occurred (and probably some other factors).  Essentially, you have a duty of care to pay attention to traffic laws and reasonable actions that may occur in front of you (accident, animal running across the street, pedestrians, etc.).  If you do not pay attention to the road for whatever reason (i.e. distracted), then you could be considered negligent. 


Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

#42 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 121,469 posts

Posted 22 May 2018 - 09:39 AM

 

Distracted driving can certainly be treated as negligence if an accident has occurred (and probably some other factors).  Essentially, you have a duty of care to pay attention to traffic laws and reasonable actions that may occur in front of you (accident, animal running across the street, pedestrians, etc.).  If you do not pay attention to the road for whatever reason (i.e. distracted), then you could be considered negligent. 

 

I'm saying "distracted" is harder to prove, sometimes impossible.


posty


#43 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 121,469 posts

Posted 22 May 2018 - 09:41 AM

dark road, someone/something runs across the street and you hit it.  you are sober.   you will be let go, 'accident'

 

if you have been drinking, you get arrested. Even if you couldn't have stopped :wacko:

 

dumb


posty


#44 Patriotsfatboy1

Patriotsfatboy1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 37,416 posts

Posted 22 May 2018 - 09:43 AM

 

I'm saying "distracted" is harder to prove, sometimes impossible.

 

It can be harder to prove, but certainly not impossible.  If someone veers out of their lane, it does not matter what distraction caused it, they are negligent.  Only thing that will get you off is if you have a heart attack or something similar. 

 

One thing to remember, the police can subpoena your phone records and they can see if you had phone activity when the "accident" occurred.  They use that quite often.  Similarly, that can exonerate someone if the activity is really just the normal pings of inactivity. 


Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

#45 Patriotsfatboy1

Patriotsfatboy1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 37,416 posts

Posted 22 May 2018 - 09:44 AM

dark road, someone/something runs across the street and you hit it.  you are sober.   you will be let go, 'accident'

 

if you have been drinking, you get arrested. Even if you couldn't have stopped :wacko:

 

dumb

 

I wouldn't call you "dumb" in your example.  Just silly and stupid if you get behind the wheel while intoxicated. 


Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

#46 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 15,447 posts

Posted 22 May 2018 - 03:40 PM

 

I wouldn't call you "dumb" in your example.  Just silly and stupid if you get behind the wheel while intoxicated. 

Exactly. Our BAC limits are relatively lenient, and there are plenty of alternatives to driving after drinking, so there is absolutely no excuse.



#47 swirvenirvin

swirvenirvin

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 27,157 posts

Posted 22 May 2018 - 07:13 PM

Hi guys :banana:


- Go Spartans EAST COAST!!!!!!
- http://ffslickpicks.com

-@ffslickpicks

Mike FF Today, on 14 March 2011 - 11:35 AM, said:
When I get new shirts made, I will send you one swirvenirvin.

#48 titans&bucs&bearsohmy!

titans&bucs&bearsohmy!

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 26,067 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 02:31 AM

Exactly. Our BAC limits are relatively lenient, and there are plenty of alternatives to driving after drinking, so there is absolutely no excuse.


Please. The BAC levels are hardly lenient. 0.08 is ridiculous.

#49 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 15,447 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 03:57 AM

Please. The BAC levels are hardly lenient. 0.08 is ridiculous.

Check out the rest of the world. Better yet, check out the levels at which alcohol impairs judgement and reaction times.

How did you determine that 0.08% is ridiculous?

#50 Strike

Strike

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 28,194 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 06:46 AM

Check out the rest of the world. Better yet, check out the levels at which alcohol impairs judgement and reaction times.

How did you determine that 0.08% is ridiculous?


Because it is. You aren't significantly impaired at .08. .10 was the appropriate level.

2008 Geek Bored Football Pick'em Champion


 


#51 edjr

edjr

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 121,469 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 06:47 AM

Hi guys :banana:

 

:pointstosky:


posty


#52 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 15,447 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 10:09 AM

Because it is. You aren't significantly impaired at .08. .10 was the appropriate level.

Because I said so doesn't cut it. How did you determine .10 is appropriate? And why do you suppose most of the world chooses a lower limit?



#53 Strike

Strike

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 28,194 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 10:28 AM

Because I said so doesn't cut it. How did you determine .10 is appropriate? And why do you suppose most of the world chooses a lower limit?

 

Neither does "But the rest of the world."  You really need to stop it with that one.  No one here gives a crap about the rest of the world.  It doens't work in your gun ban threads and it isn't compelling in this one either.  Regarding how I know .10 was reasonable and appropriate?

 

- It used to be the standard and IMO worked well balancing the desire of people to drink and being safe driving after doing so.

- I've had my BAC taken at various levels and can tell you from experience that you barely feel .08. 

- The news sensationalizes drunk driving accidents, but you rarely if ever see an accident where drunk driving was the cause and the driver was .08 or less.  Those stories almost always, if not always, end up with the person having been .15 or some other obscene number no one would ever argue should be legal.

- The only reason it got lowered below .10 in most states was due to federal government pressure and MADD.  IOW, it was political. 

 

IIRC you don't drink, so you may not be best suited to have this debate.


2008 Geek Bored Football Pick'em Champion


 


#54 Mike Honcho

Mike Honcho

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 13,945 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 10:42 AM

 

Neither does "But the rest of the world."  You really need to stop it with that one.  No one here gives a crap about the rest of the world.  It doens't work in your gun ban threads and it isn't compelling in this one either.  Regarding how I know .10 was reasonable and appropriate?

 

- It used to be the standard and IMO worked well balancing the desire of people to drink and being safe driving after doing so.

- I've had my BAC taken at various levels and can tell you from experience that you barely feel .08. 

- The news sensationalizes drunk driving accidents, but you rarely if ever see an accident where drunk driving was the cause and the driver was .08 or less.  Those stories almost always, if not always, end up with the person having been .15 or some other obscene number no one would ever argue should be legal.

- The only reason it got lowered below .10 in most states was due to federal government pressure and MADD.  IOW, it was political. 

 

IIRC you don't drink, so you may not be best suited to have this debate.

 

So reason #2 is ...Because I said so.    :lol:

 

There are numerous studies that show impairment occurs as low as .03 BAC



#55 Strike

Strike

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 28,194 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 10:50 AM

 

So reason #2 is ...Because I said so.    :lol:

 

There are numerous studies that show impairment occurs as low as .03 BAC

 

No doubt in my mind that is true.  As with many things, when setting public policy we balance a bunch of factors.  The question isn't whether your reflexes are impaired at .03 but are they impaired to the point that you're not safe on the road.  I would posit that even at .07 I'm a  better driver than most if not all 70 year olds.  Are you ok with putting an age limit on driving?  I posted the following article yesterday:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/id/31545004

 

A legally drunk person takes 4 more feet to brake than someone who hasn't had a drink.  OMFG.  The HORROR!!!!!  FOUR feet.   People drive distracted much more frequently than drunk, yet look how much more dangerous it is.  But for MADD there wouldn't be such a focus on DUI at relatively low BAC.  There should be more focus on distracted driving. 


2008 Geek Bored Football Pick'em Champion


 


#56 Patriotsfatboy1

Patriotsfatboy1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 37,416 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 11:15 AM

 

No doubt in my mind that is true.  As with many things, when setting public policy we balance a bunch of factors.  The question isn't whether your reflexes are impaired at .03 but are they impaired to the point that you're not safe on the road.  I would posit that even at .07 I'm a  better driver than most if not all 70 year olds.  Are you ok with putting an age limit on driving?  I posted the following article yesterday:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/id/31545004

 

A legally drunk person takes 4 more feet to brake than someone who hasn't had a drink.  OMFG.  The HORROR!!!!!  FOUR feet.   People drive distracted much more frequently than drunk, yet look how much more dangerous it is.  But for MADD there wouldn't be such a focus on DUI at relatively low BAC.  There should be more focus on distracted driving. 

 

 

The key with that article was that for that ONE driver, it added 4 feet.  This article indicates that it is closer to 12 feet. 

 

https://healthblog.u...bility-to-drive


Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

#57 Mookz

Mookz

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 8,520 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 11:24 AM

It's not a defiant smile, it looks genuine.  She's just a happy-go-lucky person.  As a judge I'd have a hard time putting her away.   :(



#58 Strike

Strike

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 28,194 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 12:23 PM

 

 

The key with that article was that for that ONE driver, it added 4 feet.  This article indicates that it is closer to 12 feet. 

 

https://healthblog.u...bility-to-drive

 

Apparently you didn't read the methodology in the C&D link from the article I posted, because if you had you'd know that it wasn't just one driver.  Of course, that pales in comparison to the article you posted, which draws it's conclusion from a grand total of ZERO drivers.  And, of course, both numbers from our respective articles are nowhere near what C&D found with distracted driving.  Yet here we are, arguing about something much less unsafe than distracted driving.


2008 Geek Bored Football Pick'em Champion


 


#59 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 15,447 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 03:19 PM

 

Neither does "But the rest of the world."  You really need to stop it with that one.  No one here gives a crap about the rest of the world.  It doens't work in your gun ban threads and it isn't compelling in this one either.  Regarding how I know .10 was reasonable and appropriate?

 

- It used to be the standard and IMO worked well balancing the desire of people to drink and being safe driving after doing so.

- I've had my BAC taken at various levels and can tell you from experience that you barely feel .08. 

- The news sensationalizes drunk driving accidents, but you rarely if ever see an accident where drunk driving was the cause and the driver was .08 or less.  Those stories almost always, if not always, end up with the person having been .15 or some other obscene number no one would ever argue should be legal.

- The only reason it got lowered below .10 in most states was due to federal government pressure and MADD.  IOW, it was political. 

 

IIRC you don't drink, so you may not be best suited to have this debate.

You may want to look at the science of alcohol's effects and corresponding BACs. Your opinion and personal BAC experience :lol:  are irrelevant. And we've already had this pissing match regarding serious accidents at BAC of 0.08 or less, in which you were proven way off-base.  

 

You want to drink and drive, I get it. If your lazy, stupid decision only impacted you, we'd never have this discussion. Unfortunately, it doesn't.



#60 penultimatestraw

penultimatestraw

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 15,447 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 03:24 PM

 

No doubt in my mind that is true.  As with many things, when setting public policy we balance a bunch of factors.  The question isn't whether your reflexes are impaired at .03 but are they impaired to the point that you're not safe on the road.  I would posit that even at .07 I'm a  better driver than most if not all 70 year olds.  Are you ok with putting an age limit on driving?  I posted the following article yesterday:

 

https://www.cnbc.com/id/31545004

 

A legally drunk person takes 4 more feet to brake than someone who hasn't had a drink.  OMFG.  The HORROR!!!!!  FOUR feet.   People drive distracted much more frequently than drunk, yet look how much more dangerous it is.  But for MADD there wouldn't be such a focus on DUI at relatively low BAC.  There should be more focus on distracted driving. 

Distracted driving is a major problem, but not the focus of this thread. Nor are elderly drivers. But since you asked, I think both need to be scrutinized and restricted heavily. I suggest cell phones be inactivated while in cars and more frequent driver testing for the elderly. And a BAC limit of 0.04, though I could be convinced 0 is more appropriate.



#61 titans&bucs&bearsohmy!

titans&bucs&bearsohmy!

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 26,067 posts

Posted 23 May 2018 - 10:25 PM

 
Neither does "But the rest of the world."  You really need to stop it with that one.  No one here gives a crap about the rest of the world.  It doens't work in your gun ban threads and it isn't compelling in this one either.  Regarding how I know .10 was reasonable and appropriate?
 
- It used to be the standard and IMO worked well balancing the desire of people to drink and being safe driving after doing so.
- I've had my BAC taken at various levels and can tell you from experience that you barely feel .08. 
- The news sensationalizes drunk driving accidents, but you rarely if ever see an accident where drunk driving was the cause and the driver was .08 or less.  Those stories almost always, if not always, end up with the person having been .15 or some other obscene number no one would ever argue should be legal.
- The only reason it got lowered below .10 in most states was due to federal government pressure and MADD.  IOW, it was political. 
 
IIRC you don't drink, so you may not be best suited to have this debate.


The other reason it stays so low is because the government makes a focking fortune off of DUI. Bail, court costs, the bullsh!t classes, diversion, parole. They make money half a dozen different ways.

#62 Baker Boy

Baker Boy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 5,258 posts

Posted 24 May 2018 - 09:51 AM

http://www.foxnews.c...ted-to-die.html
A 21-month-old child who was injured when a street racer struck and killed her mother in Tampa, Fla., earlier this week is not expected to survive either, according to police.
Cameron Herrin, 18, was charged with vehicular manslaughter stemming from the death of Lillia Raubenolt's mother, Jessica Resingner.