Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
supermike80

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

Recommended Posts

 

: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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/how-alcohol-impairs-your-ability-to-drive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/how-alcohol-impairs-your-ability-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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/05/24/toddler-hit-by-alleged-street-racer-who-killed-her-mother-also-expected-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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×