I need to apologize
by jeffro on Apr 11, 2009 10:30 AM PDT
Email
PrintSo, in the wake of the Nick Adenhart thing, I was reminded of some very stupid things I said in a recent fanpost about bringing Dontrelle Willis back to Oakland.
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2009/3/30/815786/dontrelle-coming-home#13553694
So, to everyone here, I am sorry for having such a cavalier attitude towards DUI in general. I personally have never been touched by drunk driving in this way and I am thnkful for that.
My intial thought was thet people who drive drunk and are punished deserve a second chance. What I realize is that, while this may be true, people who drive drunk are not really punsihed in away comensurate with the crime.
To understand that the fellow who did the killing this week had already been "punished" by having his license suspended really drove home this point for me.
So, in summary, sorry for my misinformed ramblings as brief as they were. DUI is clearly a major societal problem. The Rev makes some excellent points here about it
92 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's hard
Millions of people drive drunk all the time. The majority of them get home safely but that doesn’t make it okay.
Some people have had close calls alone and that’s been enough to get them to change. Unfortunately, some cost other people their lives. I have no sympathy for them. I do for the ones who are fortunate enough to learn a lesson without anyone getting hurt.
The worst are the ones who have been busted for DUI before like the a-hole that hit the car Adenhart and the others were in. Throw the book at him and put him away forever. Obviously he didn’t learn his lesson before that and others paid the price for it in the end.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
ya and after he hit them
he got out of his car and ran. His passenger with him (who i also pressume was drunk) stayed and the coward Gallo ran. He should get life with no parole.
Basesball is just a game-RIP Nick Adenhart
What I read this morning was that he is charged with 3 counts of murder,
but that the maximum sentence is 55 years. Now if he’s given the maximum sentence, as a 22 year old it is essentially a life sentence – but technically it sounds like he cannot be jailed when he’s 78 no matter how the jury finds.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
He has 3 counts of murder
A second DUI, hit and run and I’m not sure but attempted murder on the fourth guy?
Basesball is just a game-RIP Nick Adenhart
It wouldn't be attempted murder because it was not intentional
Maybe “battery”?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
55- life
for 2nd degree murder.
eligible for parole in about 40 yeras. no one ever gets parole. the only people on parole have sentences tha don’t include “to life”
And he was 3x the legal limit
No excuses for that. We’re not talking one or two beers too many here. This guy got plastered just like he often did.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Also, most 22 year olds who get plastered
are not alcoholics suffering from a disease. They are “big kids” who feel immortal and who lack judgment even when sober. And they are often people whose “friends and family” make excuses for them instead of demanding that they act like responsible adults – it’s called “enabling” and hopefully law enforcement doesn’t become yet another enabler in the lives of people who need a sense of responsibility, not “another chance.”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
You don't need to talk me into agreeing ;-)
A first or second chance is good if the situation warrants it but at least in this guy’s case, he deserves no more. Ever.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
The problem with
“Unfortunately, some cost other people their lives. I have no sympathy for them. I do for the ones who are fortunate enough to learn a lesson without anyone getting hurt.” is that it requires us only to be reactive, not proactive. If after a first mistake, we say “Let’s see if you learned your lesson and won’t do it again,” and after a repeated, this time fatal, mistake we say, “OK we need to take away your license, lock you up, etc.” we are stopping drunk drivers only after they have caused a tragedy.
The stats say, pretty clearly, that most people drive drunk multiple times before they’re caught once, and that those who drive drunk once usually do it again if given the chance. So when you catch someone the first time, and no one is killed, why not say, “You have likely done this before and will likely do it again, so let’s take action BEFORE someone gets killed”?
Driving is not a right, it’s a privilege, and those who choose to drink and drive don’t warrant the privilege – certainly not at the expense of the rights of innocent people to drive amongst sober peers.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'd agree with a "one strike" policy on drunk drivers
If you get caught and you’re over the limit, you lose your license. No second chances.
Like you said, the first time people get caught driving drunk is almost always not the first time they’ve done it.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
That is the policy in California, by the way.
Automatic loss of license for four months.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I could be wrong...
but I’m infallible so something has to give. My cousin just got a DUI and I believe he kept a provisional license that allows him to drive back and forth to work. I know this is being abused by people who
"-i never said half the things i said." --Yogi Berra
After one month
persons can apply for a license that allows them to drive to and from work, as well as to treatment, which extends the total period of time an additional 90 days. The end result in that scenario is no driving at all for one month, and driving only to/from work and treatment for 4 1/2 months.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Thanks Jeepers
Now that you mention it that is exactly what happen. If he does get caught on the provisional I believe he can lose his license until 25 but again I wouldn’t bet the house on my info.
"-i never said half the things i said." --Yogi Berra
They should take possession of the car as well
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
He was very lucky
They didn’t and he had a ding for weed too. I’ve had many friends catch DUI’s though and there is almost always an impound. My cousin is 18 and a complete spoiled ass bonehead. I just hope he actually learns his lesson instead of letting his parents bail him out and have a stronger lesson tossed his way.
"-i never said half the things i said." --Yogi Berra
Not as far as I'm concerned.
I don’t think the government has a right to seize a person’s property. Perhaps impounding it for a period of time at the government’s own expense. Property forfeiture laws make me fly into King Kong-like rage.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
do they have a right to impose criminal fines? Isn’t that pretty much the same thing? Do they have a right to put people in prison? Isn’t that an awful lot worse?
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Property forfeiture rules
can create problematic incentives. At the very least you have to be careful that the property being seized actually belongs to the real criminal. The laws that were really abused were ones for possession. Some guy would own a big yacht and have friends over on it, one friend might smoke a joint on the sly and leave the remainder somewhere. The boat owner doesn’t even know about it, but the cops would find the butt end of a joint and confiscate the whole boat for auction. Suddenly it’s profitable to go looking for drugs in suitably valuable property.
I have a similar concern about punitive damages. If you want to punish the offender, fine, but make sure the prosecutors aren’t the ones who get to collect the winnings.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I mean more that
I don’t see what’s wrong with property forfeiture as a criminal sanction. There are various drug laws that I don’t understand that are subject to these sorts of abuses, but in the drunk driving case people when convicted have their licenses suspended/revoked, get fined, go to prison, etc., and property seizure doesn’t seem particularly objectionable. Is your point that as far as police/government incentives go it’s a big loser to send people to prison and a lot of fines won’t be collected so they would go after crimes/potential criminals (or non-criminals) with valuable property? That’s a reasonable point I guess. I guess it depends on the extent to which police/government agencies are expected to self-finance.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Yes, you've got my point.
Also, there’s the issue that a fixed fine amount hurts a poor person more than a wealthy person, which is potentially a concern either for fairness or for incentive. It’s hard to pick a number which is not either too onerous for the poor person or too trivial for the rich person. Even if you don’t care about fairness, it’s a practical obstacle in making an optimal policy decision.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Sort of like this case?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-profiling_wittmar10,0,6051682.story
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
possesion of the car? like permanently?
One. That doesn’t make sense. And, Two. That wouldn’t nccessarily stop the person from driving. What if they have another? What if they borrow one/
The bigger problem is that it's too big a fine
I think the max for non-felonies is significantly lower than the value of high end cars.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
+1
The worst are the ones who have been busted for DUI before like the a-hole that hit the car Adenhart and the others were in. Throw the book at him and put him away forever. Obviously he didn’t learn his lesson before that and others paid the price for it in the end.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I read your comments.
They don’t warrant an apology. People make bad choices every day. Whether or not they learn from them is what’s important.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I'm hoping jeffro will apologize for this apology
Sorry.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
sorry for being sorry, ha
I got a couple of emails reminding me of what I had written. I just didn’t want anyone to think I thought DUI was okay and it was so random that the discussion was a week before this horrible situation.
I am ready for some damn good news. No more people dying in car accidents, no more kids abducted and killed, no more police officers being hunted, no more pirates, no more… I think you know what I am saying.
I am just sorry in general right now :)
myspace music
PUPPY RUSHED TO HOSPITAL
Don’t read. It’s not pretty.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I HAD a Friend
who drove on a suspended license. He was probably (knowing him) high on speed as well. He had a U Haul truck and was towing his boat on the 405 freeway. He did not have it hitched properly. The trailer and boat came off and a person on a motorcycle who witnesses said was doing 80 mph came flying out of the carpool lane where it ended and met with the trailer carrying the boat. He was killed instantly and this so called friend (who is not anymore because he would not get clean and is a POS) ran back, saw the person mangled at angles he could not believe, then ran from the scene and called me at work and told me what had happened.
I had to convince this person to turn himself in the next morning. He got drunk that night and was in a terrible turmoil. When he called me initially, he was incoherent and was distraught. I told him to call the CHP in Santa Ana (Not the local police) and tell them he was turning himself in. He indicated that he was not clean and knew they were going to test him. I said, you might as well tell them you smoked some pot (which he did all the time as well) and tell them you did because you were trying to calm down.
He told the investigators this and they never tested him. They charged him with Misdemeanor manslaughter, driving on a suspended and felony hit and run causing a death. They determined thru witnesses that he was driving at the normal safe speed but that the trailer was not secured properly. They also heard from witnesses that the guy on the bike was going way to fast and could not get out of the way.
The fact of the matter is that he should not have been on the road period. He plead guilty and got 3 years in prison. He got out and I gave him a place to stay for a few weeks and caught him ordering speed one day. I kicked him out of the house and said something like the following.
YOU DON’T FUCKING LEARN DO YOU. YOU KILL SOMEONE AND YOU THINK THAT WOULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE BUT YOU KEEP DOING DRUGS IN AN EFFORT TO RUN AWAY AND HIDE FROM REALITY. YOU BRING DRUGS INTO MY HOUSE SHOWING COMPLETE AND UTTER REGARDF FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HELP YOU. YOU WILL END UP IN PRISON AGAIN. GET THE HELL OUT OF MY HOUSE AND DON’T CALL EM AGAIN.
He has been back in prison 4 times since for violating his parole.
Just thought I would share this.
That he's been in and out of prison that many times shows how much is wrong with the system, and him
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
maybe it's not prison where he should be going in and out of...
Maybe it should be sometime of drug rehabilitation center.
+a lot
He has been back in prison 4 times since for violating his parole.
This puts him in the vast majority, because parole in California is about the worst in the country
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
I understand the bad feelings about dui
However, it’s kind of that thing that’s easy to say “well look here, this person really screwed up, let’s hang a life sentence on them.” The thing is, that it is relatively easy to prove that someone drove drunk when somebody got hurt or killed. The thing is, that cars are incredibly dangerous and lots of people drive impaired in many different ways and hurt others because of their bad decisions and carelessness.
Drunk drivers should be punished, but let’s be real.
As far as punishment goes, who knows if this guy is going to learn from this mistake. Some people do, some don’t. I have a friend that killed a woman he was in love with because of drunk driving. This happened more than 30 years ago when the laws were not as severe. He learned his lesson though and he probably won’t ever finish making amends for that mistake.
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Apr 11, 2009 11:11 AM PDT reply actions
I don't think you have to lock someone up
so much as take away their license, impound their car, etc. They don’t need to rot in jail or crowd the prison system; they also need not to drive a car.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I am just saying
There’s no blood test for hopeless fuckup.
"Not in your wildest alcoholic nightmare would you ever imagine such events unfolding!" Bill King
by Buck Turgidson on Apr 11, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
If you take away their car/license
you’re taking away their livelihood—you may as well punch their ticket for jail at the same time, because that’s where they’re headed. The idea should be to rehabilitate the individual and prevent it from happening again. What will happen if you take away their license? They’ll drive without it—because they have to—and get arrested for that instead.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Oh no! We're taking away their livelihood!!!
Do you hear yourself?
1. They’re taking away other people’s lives.
2. Take a bus. Carpool. Spend money you would spend on alcohol on BART instead.
Rehabilitation is a great idea. And they shouldn’t drive in the meantime. Period.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Whose life did someone who gets caught take away?
Nobody’s, that’s who. If you take someone’s life away, you go to jail for a very long time, and your license is irrelevant.
Taking buses and carpools are a nice idea, but they’re completely impractical in 90% of the United States.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Except people who take someone's life away don't always go to jail for a very long time
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Taking away their livelihood?
Tough. If they can’t be responsible enough to drive sober, they can find another way to get around, get to work, etc. Get a bike. Carpool. Take the bus. Whatever.
If they drive without a license and get arrested for it, boo-hoo.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
If you drive without a license you are more likely to do things like flee a crash
which is not a beneficial outcome for society.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 11, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Neither is driving drunk in the first place
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I can't believe the excuses being made for felons
We had better let you drive, because if we don’t you might drive anyway and then flee the scene! That’s why mandated rehabilitation in an inpatient setting might make sense, along with the suspended license.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'm kind of big on personal responsibility
And no, I’m not going to sit here and pretend the system isn’t broken. It absolutely has problems left and right when it comes to rehabilitation.
But come ON. It’s not anyone’s fault but the one who buys the beer, alcohol and so on and has so much that he gets in a vehicle and puts the safety of others in jeopardy.
If you get busted for DUI, you screwed up. If you lose your license, you screwed up. If you go out and KEEP DRIVING, you screwed up even more.
Maybe more people should think about that before continuing to get plastered. I know alcohol and tobacco is addictive and there’s a problem with things that addictive being what’s actually legal, but it’s not an excuse for drunk driving.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I don't disagree with any of that, but
several of your posts seem to suggest that you’re thinking in terms of rational behavior and response to punishments and incentives. If that’s so, then I suspect you’ve never gotten to know any real alcoholics.
That said, plenty of people who drive drunk aren’t alcoholics at all, just regular people who are lazy or careless or just don’t take it seriously enough. We’ve made some progress at reaching those people, and I’m hopeful we can make some more.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
I grew up with one: my father
He’s made some mistakes and fortunately nobody was physically hurt because of it.
That’s all I really want to say on that part.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Got it.
I didn’t sense that from earlier posts, but I hear you loud and clear now. I do know exactly what you mean, both paragraphs.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
Yep
And don’t get me wrong: it’s not because of him that I hold whatever beliefs I do about alcoholics, drunk drivers, etc. I love him and I know he’s got a lot of personal demons he’s had trouble dealing with. He’s felt a lot of guilt for years over things he did or didn’t do in raising his two sons. If nothing else, he’s helped me in the sense of a few things I don’t want to end up doing.
Aside from all that, I just have very strong opinions about people who willingly get behind the wheel drunk enough to cause an accident. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other things that make people drive impaired and it doesn’t absolve them of any responsibility when it comes to causing accidents, but like I said elsewhere in this post the main difference is the other things can be shut off, done earlier, etc. You can’t just flip the switch and not be drunk after you’ve had a lot to drink until the necessary time has gone by.
(Okay, so much for “that’s all I really want to say.”)
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Misdemeanors.
And they’re not excuses, they’re attempts at practical solutions for real problems, not the torch and pitchfork mentality MADD likes to foster.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Im not making excuses
but accepting that your punitive measures will be ineffective makes good public policy sense.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 11, 2009 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions
And your solution eliminates this how?
Oh right it doesn’t.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 11, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Not driving drunk nips it in the bud
Please stop making excuses for people who willingly and knowingly put others in danger by being irresponsible. “They can’t help it because they’re addicted” is not an excuse.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
That sounds nice in principle, too.
Then don’t bitch when said jobless people cost you more money and aggravation than they would have in the first place. It makes no sense to create laws without considering ALL of their consequences.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
Laws made to make people feel righteous almost always fail for this reason.
To ignore the likely outcomes of legislation because you are getting “tough” on crime, drugs, or whatever usually is a disaster.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 11, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions
He didn't learn from his past mistakes
Even though he said in a court statement a few years ago that he understood if he continued to drink and drive others may die as a result.
Well, now it happened.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
For what it's worth I would imagine a similar statement
is uttered in about 97% of the court statements after somebody gets a DUI.
Such a tough reminder of the stupid things we do
I feel very bad for Nick and the other lives lost. I feel even worse in some ways for those they leave behind that now must sweep up the fragmented emotions and carry on. There were so may times only a decade ago I would be driving when I had no business doing so and thank God something like this never happen to or by me. I believe I would rather get taken out then try to live with other blood on my hands and yes I know it’s easy to say. The young kid needs to be accountable and probably ruined his life but like others have said driving while inebriated is something both “good” and “bad” people do far too often. I’m am not making excuses for his wrong doings and he deserves what he gets I just feel the whole situation is sad on so many levels. RIP Nick.
As far as the apology man I read your posts as well and I agree you really didn’t say anything more knuckle headed then half of the posts I write on this board. Nico would tell you 90% of my writings but I contribute the other 40% to my other personalities Jack Daniels and Jim Bean.
"-i never said half the things i said." --Yogi Berra
Not sure about that...
As someone who may have driven while over the legal limit on too many occasions, I understand the feeling that you can’t execute drunk drivers, which is what it sure seems like a lot of people on here would like to do.
However, this guy wasn’t driving drunk….he was OBLITERATED. I mean, he was more than 3 times over the legal limit. He probably couldn’t even see straight. That’s awful…and I don’t actually know many people who have driven drunk LIKE THAT.
Disease
I think something that a lot of people here are forgetting is that Alcoholism is a disease. From Wikipedia:
Modern medical definitions describe alcoholism as a disease and addiction which results in a persistent use of alcohol despite negative consequences.
Sending someone to jail for a medical condition is problematic in my book. Nico I think makes an argument that is completely disconnected from the nature of addiction. Take away their license (an addict will drive anyway), make them a felon (so they can’t get a job), throw them in jail (we already have 1 out of ever 100 people in this country behind bars). These “solutions” get us nowhere besides condemning people with a medical problem to make us feel good.
Now are there people who drive drunk and are not alcoholics? Yes. Do perverse incentives affect them? Yes. What needs to happen is finding a balance between not ruining someones life if they do indeed have a medical condition and having enough perverse incentives to discourage those who can think rationally because they are not addicted. Simply condemning people may make you feel superior but it is hardly the right public policy approach in my book.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 11, 2009 1:40 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Be that as it may, I'll join Nico in condemning drunk drivers who keep doing it
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Your attitude is part of the problem.
They should just stop is not a reasonable argument to make of an addict. Trainman said in another thread that being an addict to pills was like believing that the pills were as necessary to life as oxygen. You completely ignore the nature of the MEDICAL DISEASE that is alcoholism and addiction.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 11, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Nah
Them driving drunk is the only problem.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Blindness is a medical condition, and I'm sorry but I just
don’t want a blind person driving my bus. Nor a narcoleptic.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Then we should just take all bad drivers off the road, and put them in jail.
That includes people that speed, run lights, eat while theyre driving, change the radio station, change the a/c, don’t signal, and drive lexus suvs.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 11, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hey, I'd be fine with getting the text-messaging idiots off the road for starters
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
I never thought car phones should be allowed in the first place
Driving is a SERIOUS activity, not just some way to get around.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
do you really think thats more dangerous than trying to find a song on the radio?
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 11, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions
100% agree with this.
talking/texting is incredibly dangerous while driving. But man is that an arbitrary law. There are SO many other ways to distract oneself while driving.
What's your point here?
Why are you trying to rank things in terms of what’s more likely to cause an accident?
Drunk driving has always been a problem.
With the popularity of talking on a cell phone and text messaging while driving, with people paying increasingly less attention to the road, some states have determined a law is necessary to try cutting back on accidents caused by it. It may be ineffective in that there’s no way the police will catch everyone who keeps yapping with a cell phone attached to the ear, the point is to draw awareness to it being a problem.
I’d like to see them call more attention to distractions like doing makeup in the car and things like that, but you’re really getting into an unrealistic area if you’re going to compare drunk driving, text messaging and all that to adjusting the radio or A/C.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
NO- Reckless driving is the problem
I don’t care why someone is weaving, running reds, taking corners too fast and running into telephone poles, whether they are drunk eating putting on makeup arguing with a passenger. Statistics might have changed since I was in drivers ed (It has been 7 years or so) but it was taught that eating while driving caused more accidents than driving drunk. Why don’t we ban that too?
My point is that our society is more than happy shouldering increased risk for plenty of activities that are just as hazardous as drinking. Its easy to demonize alcoholics, which is what youre doing.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 11, 2009 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions
That's exactly NOT what we're doing
To become an alcoholic, you need to do at least two things no matter what your genetics are: You have to start drinking and you have to continue drinking. You do have the choice not to, whereas you can do “everything right” and still get diseases like cancer and leukemia.
Once you have “the disease” of alcoholism, regardless of why you have a drinking problem or how wonderful a human being you are, once you establish you are someone who cannot stop themselves from drinking and driving, you should not drive until you establish that you are no longer someone who cannot stop themselves from drinking and driving.
The kind of program I’d personally favor is that after a first offense, you would have your license suspended and would be mandated into a rehab program where you would be assigned a “parole officer” of sorts – someone who would track your progress and who would decide when it was appropriate to give your license back. I would also favor a really strong sentence for a second offense, or driving with a suspended license, such as license suspended for 10 years.
If 70% of the people who had their license suspended still drove and drove drunk, then “most people” would still do that, sure – yet drunk driving would be reduced 30% in that sample, which is huge.
I don’t lack sympathy for alcoholics (and in fact I know many who are wonderful people), but the law’s job is to protect the innocent, not the “diseased,” and when a problem is this rampant the team – “all sober folks on the road” – just has to be bigger than the individual.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I am an alcoholic who stopped driving after having a scare
I stopped drinking 10 years later.
I had the common sense to quit driving as I was either going to kill someone or myself or both.
It took me an extra 10 years to quit drinking and pilling (Pills were the final nail). I looked in the mirror one day after throwing up a little blood and didn’t like what I saw. I vowed to get help and I quit that day. That was December 08, 1998. Never wanted a drink or an addictive pill since. I take a few vitamins here and there and aspirin every day.
I think people drink and drive because they feel invincible and think they are fine and quite capable of doing so. Being an alcoholic does not make much of a difference IMO. Like I said, I quit the driving part after my little scare and was very happy to be able to take a cab or get a ride and then wake up in the morning knowing (for the most part) that I didn’t harm anyone else.
Some people are going to drive anyway no matter what their disposition.
Further to this
I felt I could drive on booze quite well compared to driving on vicodin’s. They will get you in bigger trouble as they fuck with your depth perception. I cannot tell you the number of times I nearly rear ended someone while high on pain pills with no alcohol in me.
I got hooked on pills when my friend gave me some for a severe hangover. I even quit drinking for 6 months. He bet me $500.00 I couldn’t stop drinking. I did and won the bet. Of course I got hooked on the pills.
I could probably drink normally now and not have a problem but I am sure not going to try. I don’t want to go thru what I went thru when I got clean and sober. Cold Turkey from the pills and booze is like having a severe case of the flu with body aches and blood pressure thru the roof. Imagine your head in a vice with a humming noise in your head 24/7 until the withdrawals wear off which took over a week to even feel somewhat normal. Add running to the rest room 20 times a day with the “water going right thru you routine” and you get the picture.
Would not wish that on my worst enemy or Bobby Crosby
I'm with you about reckless driving
But let’s be realistic. Adjusting the A/C or changing the radio station is not on the same level as drunk driving, paying more attention to your texting than the road, etc.
I am not demonizing alcoholics, though. It is ILLEGAL to drive with a measurable amount of alcohol in your system past a certain level. This is one of the clearest, most emphasized laws we have out there.
The reason we’re starting to see other things become restricted and/or illegal is because they also affect people’s ability to drive safely, but you know what the difference is?
If you’re drunk and you get behind the wheel, you can’t just shut it off like you can a phone. You’re drunk until it passes through your system and you sober up. You can turn a phone off any time. You can do your makeup before you leave the house.
There is no comparison here past the fact these things impair drivers in different ways, but when you get as drunk as people do in these cases you’ve physically affected your body to the point of being unable to perform the same as you would sober.
That’s my point.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Not sure about changing the radio
but talking on the phone while driving is, statistically speaking, precisely on the same level as drinking and driving. And that’s regardless of whether or not you’re using a hands-free device. Seems like an even worse decision in some senses, since you don’t have any compromised judgement to blame for the decision.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I've been against phones in cars from day one
At least they’re doing something about it now, albeit not enough.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I don't have any issues using an earpiece for the phone
But I’m also used to music playing or the radio on. When I first started driving I needed absolute silence to focus. Now I don’t feel comfortable without some music playing.
How comfortable?
Last week when I went up to Elk Grove after my car stereo had been stolen, just to be able to listen to something I used my MP3 player, a set of computer speakers sitting on the back seat, and a power adapter for the cigarette lighter.
I speed on the highway but I drive safely. I’m not the type to go zipping in and out of traffic but if traffic’s light or going at a steady pace I have no problem going 80-90 MPH. Being that speeding is illegal, yeah, I break the law, but there’s a lot more to it than that. If you drive safely and pay attention to what’s around you, by and large you’ll be just fine. That’s the important thing.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
An earpiece beats no ear piece,
but I don’t think it really solves the problem. I think the main issue with talking while driving isn’t that you lose the use of one of your hands, but rather that when you’re deep in conversation it’s pretty easy to forget what you are doing, which is driving.
Yeah, I'd agree with that to an extent
With the explanation that some people are better at multitasking than others, but whether the conversation is with someone through a phone earpiece or someone in the passenger seat, both can be distracting.
I almost never pick up a call in the car anyway unless it’s someone I need to talk to that I have programmed into the phone. Random calls go to voicemail.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
You're awfully cavalier about the cellphone thing.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
That's fine
Like I said, I rarely use the phone when I drive and I pay attention enough for it to make little difference. I have never been in danger due to using the phone earpiece.
I don’t have a problem saying I’m a much better driver than a lot of people out there. If that’s me sounding like I’m proud of it, you’re right. I am.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Look out!!!
If you’re going to comment on this thread, Flashfire, please at least pull over.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
sure,
this is the “only problem”, but the question then becomes: why are they driving drunk? And in a lot of cases it is because they are alcoholics. To ignore this fact is counterproductive.
Exactly you can't ignore that its a disease.
Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom
by designatedforassignment on Apr 11, 2009 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Are you volunteering to ride the bus with a driver I handpick?
He’s blind from a disease but it’s not his fault.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Like I said above
It’s a disease but I knew not to drive.
I didn’t want to stop drinking and pilling for so long but I had the common sense to stop driving. I knew I could still drink, I just paid a bit extra for cabs etc. I also knew to stop driving because I didn’t want to hurt anyone and realized I was going to had I kept going. Especially driving home and waking up the next morning and not remembering doing so.
I could have woken up in a jail cell and that would have been hard to live with had I killed someone. Now it took about 200 times of drinking and driving along with 1 accident and 1 DUI to get the messager but I am glad I did in the end.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
