How to get out of a DUI

[SUBMAN1]

Just challenge the source code in the breathalyzer:

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9770621-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

-S

[Mikey_Wolf]

Alternatively, people could just make sure they are not driving under the influence, rather than trying to wiggle out of it when they get caught blaming all un sundry except where the blame truly lies, themselves.

A relative of mine paid a very heavy price one upon a time due to somebody's poor driving. The car in the wrong hands is a deadly weapon. I hope the little snake doesn't get away with it.

[The Avon Lady]

Aaaaa yooooooooooo cant ahhhhhhhhhhhrest me offizzzer.

I challenge the morse code.

No. Wait.

I mangled the horse food.

Holdeeee on juster a minute. hic. hic.

I challenge the ahhh you to a dual.

No. I mean. Wait.

I challenge the source. Yeh. The barbeque source.

Wait. Wait. It's on the tippee of my tongue here - ahhhh - there.

How many fingers?

[samniTe]

what fun is driving if you're not drunk?

[Mikey_Wolf]

Its a lot more fun for the other road users and a hell of a lot safer too!

[antikristuseke]

Drunk drivers should be shot.

[The Avon Lady]

Drunk drivers should be shot.
By definition, they are. :roll:

[SUBMAN1]

Drunk drivers should be shot. By definition, they are. :roll::rotfl: :rotfl::rotfl:

[antikristuseke]

Heh, i ment more like a bullet to the brain but :lol:

[Skybird]

My mom lost her sister (and her complete family: husband, unborn baby) due to a drunken driver. I lost my fiance due to a drunken driver. I reserve the right to beat up every f###ing a$$hole who tries to drive drunk under my eyes. And I will give my best in getting that job done, and then some. A warning penalty of 200 euros and one month without license is just too good and means nothing for such imbiciles.

If loss of license messes up that man's life and job - so be it. Nobody told him to act like a caveman.

Needless that I defend nil-promille rules for drivers. If you are to drive, no alcohol. It's the cleanest solution, invulnerable to physical variables, shape of day, moon phase and weather and season.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

http://img.search.com/thumb/4/4d/Obi-WanKenobi.jpg/180px-Obi-WanKenobi.jpg

"These aren't the drunks you are looking for"
"They may go about their pissup"

;)

[Penelope_Grey]

I just love how some people find things like this amusing. I doubt it would be so funny if it were to happen to you.

[lesrae]

Drinking & Driving is deadly and not really a laughing matter IMO.

[SUBMAN1]

Actually, in my opinion, .08 level is a little pathetic to use as the defining mark. .1 is probably a better benchmark to use and they used to use it around here. .08 is less than a single beer for some people, and I have yet to see someone drunk off 1 beer or have anything impaired driving wise. Tomorrow, it will be .06.

Anyway, what irks me more than anything about this is, driving with a cell phone is equivalent to blowing a .15 or .2, and yet we tolerate that??!!!

This is another case of PC gone haywire. Yes - if you blow a .1, then you are starting to become impaired and you should hang out till your alc level comes down a bit, or get a cab.

I don't personally know anyone who has been pulled over for drunk driving, but I've had a close call or two with a drunk driver, but this is nothing because I CAN'T COUNT HOW MANY TIMES I'VE ALMOST BEEN KILLED BY A CELL PHONE USER!!!! :down:

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Drinking & Driving is deadly and not really a laughing matter IMO.

Quit being so serious. Drunk Driving is not a laughing matter, unless someone makes a joke out of it - but this has nothing to do with condoning such behavior.

People around here need to lighten up a little. Maybe it's time I find some more jokes to post.

-S

[Tchocky]

Seems to be at the upper end of global standards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content#Limits_by_country_.28BAC:_Bl ood_Alcohol_Content.29

[SUBMAN1]

Seems to be at the upper end of global standards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content#Limits_by_country_.28BAC:_Bl ood_Alcohol_Content.29

Maybe, but little in America resembles the PC Europe these days, so this doesn't surprise me.

[Skybird]

Anyway, what irks me more than anything about this is, driving with a cell phone is equivalent to blowing a .15 or .2, and yet we tolerate that??!!!

Telephoning while driving is prohibited in Germany , as long as you do not use a room microphone and loudspeakers and have both hands free.
Psychologically it still is too distracting and should be forbidden completely, i think.

We lived without that until just some years ago, and nobody was missing it. But today some wannabe-VIPs claim they can't live without it? Ridiculous.

[VipertheSniper]

Actually, in my opinion, .08 level is a little pathetic to use as the defining mark. .1 is probably a better benchmark to use and they used to use it around here. .08 is less than a single beer for some people, and I have yet to see someone drunk off 1 beer or have anything impaired driving wise. Tomorrow, it will be .06.


0.08 % Less than a single beer? How strong has that got to be? I've yet to meet a person who get's 0.08 % after a single beer.
0.1% that would be double than what we have in austria, and 0.05% is plenty, atleast 0.5 litres of beer.
two beers and you've got about 0.08%, some are drunk or appear to be drunk after one beer, that's right, and they might even not get in the car after said one beer, but would be allowed to drive.

[SUBMAN1]

Actually, in my opinion, .08 level is a little pathetic to use as the defining mark. .1 is probably a better benchmark to use and they used to use it around here. .08 is less than a single beer for some people, and I have yet to see someone drunk off 1 beer or have anything impaired driving wise. Tomorrow, it will be .06.

0.08 % Less than a single beer? How strong has that got to be? I've yet to meet a person who get's 0.08 % after a single beer.
0.1% that would be double than what we have in austria, and 0.05% is plenty, atleast 0.5 litres of beer.
two beers and you've got about 0.08%, some are drunk or appear to be drunk after one beer, that's right, and they might even not get in the car after said one beer, but would be allowed to drive.
You drink some weak beer out there! I can see Budweiser being 2 beers maybe, but a decent IPA, and its only 1. Budweiser is less than 5% I beleive (3%?), and a decent IPA will be up around 6.5%. Maybe we just have better beer than you guys! :D Excuse me - I should call it Ale.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Just looked it up - a decent strong Ale like a Stone Double Bastard will make a 180 lbs person blow a .09% after one bottle. This is after 1 hours time.

-S

[Monica Lewinsky]

So many people forget that ANY vehicle is a killing machine. You don't need a few "under the belt" to find how to use the weapon. Too many past stories have proven this.

[VipertheSniper]

You drink some weak beer out there! I can see Budweiser being 2 beers maybe, but a decent IPA, and its only 1. Budweiser is less than 5% I beleive (3%?), and a decent IPA will be up around 6.5%. Maybe we just have better beer than you guys! :D Excuse me - I should call it Ale.

-S

Well me and my friends drink nothing with less than 5%, but I guess drinking 0.5 litres is a bit less than a pint? Anyway even with 6.5% I think I'd be under 0.05% after an hour, 0.5 litres that is, guess with a pint I'd be slightly above. hmm I really need a good, accurate breathalyzer, because I'd like to put this to test, and not in a police control.

[antikristuseke]

My mom lost her sister (and her complete family: husband, unborn baby) due to a drunken driver. I lost my fiance due to a drunken driver. I reserve the right to beat up every f###ing a$$hole who tries to drive drunk under my eyes. And I will give my best in getting that job done, and then some. A warning penalty of 200 euros and one month without license is just too good and means nothing for such imbiciles.

If loss of license messes up that man's life and job - so be it. Nobody told him to act like a caveman.

Needless that I defend nil-promille rules for drivers. If you are to drive, no alcohol. It's the cleanest solution, invulnerable to physical variables, shape of day, moon phase and weather and season.

I agree with you 100%.

[sunvalleyslim]

[quote=SUBMAN1]Actually, in my opinion, .08 level is a little pathetic to use as the defining mark. .1 is probably a better benchmark to use and they used to use it around here. .08 is less than a single beer for some people, and I have yet to see someone drunk off 1 beer or have anything impaired driving wise. Tomorrow, it will be .06.

Subman,
I have been around long enough to remember when the legal limit in Calif. was .10%. It was nearly impossible to get a conviction below that number. Today it stands here in Calif. at .08%.
In my career I personally arrested over 4,000 people for driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, stupidity, or a combination of all three. The highest reading was a .42%. By definition that is supposed to be comatose. That person was driving down the road when I stopped him. I have also arrested some one who was an .06%. A young petite woman, non drinker, holiday party, rear ended a car. She was passed out when I got there, passed out in the patrol car, woke up and puked all over the front seat before I got her to the station. Had to help her stand to blow into the GCI. Case never made it to court. City Attorney threw it out because of the number.

Bottom line, I've stopped people that were driving perfectly fine, did the Field Sobriety Test with no problem, but you just had that gut feeling they were impaired. Get them to the station and they blow a .20% Case closed. That guys gonna get convicted no matter what, because of the reading. He's an alcoholic, but has learned to act sober to the rest of the world.
On the other hand the girl walks because her number was low. Who's the bigger menace on the road? She is. Numbers don't really mean a thing out on the street, but they sure do in a court of law. So The Law picks an arbitary number that fits the average Joe. Over it you're a gonner. Under, you might just walk......

KInd of pathetic, when you realize people die a senseless death at the hand of another........and it can come down to a number

[bookworm_020]

Actually, in my opinion, .08 level is a little pathetic to use as the defining mark. .1 is probably a better benchmark to use and they used to use it around here. .08 is less than a single beer for some people, and I have yet to see someone drunk off 1 beer or have anything impaired driving wise. Tomorrow, it will be .06.

Anyway, what irks me more than anything about this is, driving with a cell phone is equivalent to blowing a .15 or .2, and yet we tolerate that??!!!

This is another case of PC gone haywire. Yes - if you blow a .1, then you are starting to become impaired and you should hang out till your alc level comes down a bit, or get a cab.

I don't personally know anyone who has been pulled over for drunk driving, but I've had a close call or two with a drunk driver, but this is nothing because I CAN'T COUNT HOW MANY TIMES I'VE ALMOST BEEN KILLED BY A CELL PHONE USER!!!! :down:

-S

Here in Australia, it's 0.05 for Blood alcohol content for your regular drivers, point 0.02 for P platers and 0.00 for learners! It helped bring down alcohol related acciedents and deaths. Now they are doing test for drugs, so your introuble if your blotto or stoned!:doh::dead:

As for rasing the limits, no one would dare. After years of this (it's been in since the early 80's) everone know the limits and many clubs and pubs have been supportive, such as

Designated drivers - some who get free soft drinks by wearing a wrist band showing that their the Des driver for the night, commoon around Christmas.

A free bus to drop them home

Volunteer groups who will drop people home if they have ahd too much to drink and drive home under the law

Pubs installing breath testers, so people can see if there near the limit.

[Camaero]

One day me and a friend were driving home late one night. There was a car in front of us who we were just about to pass when all of a sudden he swerved to the right and then very quickly to the left and smashed into the guard rails almost head on. We stopped and helped the guy. The smell of alcohol was all over his breath. Then a nice looking Camaro cop car picked the guy up and hauled him off. I was amazed that the guy wasn't hurt. I would have liked to kick his ass though...

I don't think the penalty is high enough for drunk drivers. So many innocent lives are lost or damaged because of a few people trying to get themselves a Darwin Award.

[The Avon Lady]

An oldie but a goodie:

How NOT to get out of a DUI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIycRxevsI)

[The Avon Lady]

Back to seriousness, a few years ago here they were broadcasting don't drive and drive commercials like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t-598Fe7_w).

Why they stopped broadcasting them I'll never understand. :nope:

[Tchocky]

Back to seriousness, a few years ago here they were broadcasting don't drive and drive commercials like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t-598Fe7_w).

Why they stopped broadcasting them I'll never understand. :nope: An Irish company produced them, as far as I remember. I don't see why we need to spend thousands on pretty-looking ads that tell people what they already know, and ignore.

Trying to create a better society by implementing fear tactics is almost as bad as trying to educate people by using ignorance.
Shock tactics are just that, a shock without any sort of lesson.

[The Avon Lady]

Back to seriousness, a few years ago here they were broadcasting don't drive and drive commercials like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t-598Fe7_w).

Why they stopped broadcasting them I'll never understand. :nope: An Irish company produced them, as far as I remember. I don't see why we need to spend thousands on pretty-looking ads that tell people what they already know, and ignore.

Trying to create a better society by implementing fear tactics is almost as bad as trying to educate people by using ignorance.
Shock tactics are just that, a shock without any sort of lesson.
Can you substantiate that?

At the same time, they showed seat belt safety ads. One of them showed in slow motion the movements of the passengers inside the car when struck by an oncoming vehicle. It was also very shock intensive. It may also have been Irish. Not sure. Many more people buckled up afterwards.

[Skybird]

[quote=SUBMAN1]Actually, in my opinion, .08 level is a little pathetic to use as the defining mark. .1 is probably a better benchmark to use and they used to use it around here. .08 is less than a single beer for some people, and I have yet to see someone drunk off 1 beer or have anything impaired driving wise. Tomorrow, it will be .06.

Subman,
I have been around long enough to remember when the legal limit in Calif. was .10%. It was nearly impossible to get a conviction below that number. Today it stands here in Calif. at .08%.
In my career I personally arrested over 4,000 people for driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, stupidity, or a combination of all three. The highest reading was a .42%. By definition that is supposed to be comatose. That person was driving down the road when I stopped him. I have also arrested some one who was an .06%. A young petite woman, non drinker, holiday party, rear ended a car. She was passed out when I got there, passed out in the patrol car, woke up and puked all over the front seat before I got her to the station. Had to help her stand to blow into the GCI. Case never made it to court. City Attorney threw it out because of the number.

Bottom line, I've stopped people that were driving perfectly fine, did the Field Sobriety Test with no problem, but you just had that gut feeling they were impaired. Get them to the station and they blow a .20% Case closed. That guys gonna get convicted no matter what, because of the reading. He's an alcoholic, but has learned to act sober to the rest of the world.
On the other hand the girl walks because her number was low. Who's the bigger menace on the road? She is. Numbers don't really mean a thing out on the street, but they sure do in a court of law. So The Law picks an arbitary number that fits the average Joe. Over it you're a gonner. Under, you might just walk......

KInd of pathetic, when you realize people die a senseless death at the hand of another........and it can come down to a number

That'S why I say 0.000%. Physical status of a person varies, temperature and even air pressure (weather) can affect how much he can take. And it changes, from day to day. Ask a doctor. Also, the absorpotion rate of alcohol is influenced by your stomach's content, means: when and what you have eaten the last time, and what sort of carbonhydrates that included, and fats. Usually I subjectively feel nothing or only very minor irritation after drinking one cold beer 0.5 l. but there are days where the same ammount of beer blows me off the deck, gets me tired and dizzy, makes me sit and lay down and get a nap for half an hour or so. Don't lknow what it is, it is not sun and not temperature, that I know.

If you think you can stand x drinks today, so you can stand x drinks always in the future without hitting the promille barrier, you already think wrong.

[Skybird]

Back to seriousness, a few years ago here they were broadcasting don't drive and drive commercials like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t-598Fe7_w).

Why they stopped broadcasting them I'll never understand. :nope: An Irish company produced them, as far as I remember. I don't see why we need to spend thousands on pretty-looking ads that tell people what they already know, and ignore.

Trying to create a better society by implementing fear tactics is almost as bad as trying to educate people by using ignorance.
Shock tactics are just that, a shock without any sort of lesson.
Too harsh, too authoritarian, to less liberal a reality for you again? As a psychologist I must tell you that you are wrong, and that we know from arranged experimnetal situations as well as from reality. Shock tactics, if only going deep enough, can replace a thousand words.

Easily.

but yes, it is kind of authoritarian, and reduces the subjects freedom in that situation. Big deal.

Or is it maybe that you even want to prevent prohibition drinking and driving in combination, because you like to practice that yourself and don't want to change your habits on weekend? smokers, I remember, also easily come with excuses about their personal right and free unfolding of their personality when they are confronted with prohibitions in places, and demands to pay for their smoke-related diseases all by themselves instead of demanding the public to pay for that. They also complain about too restrictive rules, and an authoritarian state, and lacking tolerance of non-smokers.

Countries using shock banners on cigarette boxes report good experiences with that. The quota of young people stopping to smoke and not even starting to smoke significantly rose. Traffic experts say that showing drivers of all age groups videos with horror crashes after they had been waved out of the traffic line, show far greater insight than those who are just being lectured in words. They even use to tour a truck with a simulator cabin which helps them to phyiscally experience the force that their body is confronted with when just having a low rate crash of 35-40 km. Most people are said to be shocked, and leave highly impressed, sometimes on shaky legs.

Shock therapy can work very well.

[The Avon Lady]

I found the seat belt commercial (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5519461483136134461) I was referring to. Poor quality video but sufficient to get the idea of how it appeared when broadcast.

Thanks, Skybird. That's what I thought.

[Skybird]

That's an even harmless video. I've seen much worse ones, for use by the police. If they would be part of a movie at prime time, they would be cut out.

[The Avon Lady]

That's an even harmless video. I've seen much worse ones, for use by the police. If they would be part of a movie at prime time, they would be cut out.
In your professional opinion, wouldn't too high a gore factor actually cause people to avoid watching such material, even blocking out the thought?

There are 2 clearly laid out messages in the commercial I linked to:

1. Seat belts can save lives.

2. Even if you're wearing your seat belt, it can take just one unbuckled passenger to kill and mame the rest.

[Skybird]

That's an even harmless video. I've seen much worse ones, for use by the police. If they would be part of a movie at prime time, they would be cut out.
In your professional opinion, wouldn't too high a gore factor actually cause people to avoid watching such material, even blocking out the thought?

If they have the choice, probably yes. Note that I said: "for use by the police". That implies the subjects do not have that choice. :D

But considering contemporary video and gaming habits, I would say high gore factors are even attractive to the young. :D

[antikristuseke]

From my own experiences and in my opinion shock tactics dont seem to work, at least not here where I live. I dont have any statistics to back up anything I say though.

Anyway, i think anyone siting behing the wheel of something like a car should be sober, with no alcohol in their bloodstream, or any othe sustance which impaires their reactions/reasoning. Though i feel a bit hypocitical saying this at this time since I am myself pretty smashed, but meh, I took public transportation to get home from the pub.

[kiwi_2005]

Back to seriousness, a few years ago here they were broadcasting don't drive and drive commercials like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t-598Fe7_w).

Why they stopped broadcasting them I'll never understand. :nope:
Because they dont work. We have anti drunk driving adds on TV here some of them are pretty gory too and really hit home with the Dont drink and drive message. But every yr our drink driving stats are worse than the year before. They dont work. Trouble with the alcohol is it makes the person very confident where no matter how drunk they are they're confident they can drive quite perfectly. Most relative drink driving deaths (in NZ) are from young party ppl heading home from a good night out.

Ironic tho, we have the drink diving adds on TV then at times the next add will be a sport type add with rugby players having beers after a game supporting alcohol.

Like Australia, New Zealand is a pi$$head nation :D :roll:

[Mikey_Wolf]

I don't mind a drink at all. I am not one for the booze too much but do like a jot. However when it comes to cars. No excuses, no ifs buts or perhapses, if any booze has made its way into your system than that's that, you hand the car keys to someone else who has not.

As has been said in the thread, alcohol is too big a variable to play games with over a few stupid numbers.

as for people on phones in the car, don't even get me started on that.

[Tchocky]

Too harsh, too authoritarian, to less liberal a reality for you again? As a psychologist I must tell you that you are wrong, and that we know from arranged experimnetal situations as well as from reality. Shock tactics, if only going deep enough, can replace a thousand words. As a user I must tell you you're being an ass.
My objection is that I don't see these adverts as being very successful. To the standard person, who does not drive while drunk, they give every appearance of a hard-hitting campaign. Mostly, because they reinforce our ideas about drunk drivers (there's a post up therre about shooting them). In the mental rush to differentiate ourselves from those who drive when incapable, I think we overestimate the effectiveness of gory shock adverts. We (I'm assuming most people here don't drive drunk) are not the intended audience here.
I didn't make the nature of my objection very clear in my original post, true. But neither did I go off on what you might call a stereotypically liberal, anto-authoritarian rant. But you seem to think I did. Or you were looking to get an insult in, whatever.

Anyway, in response to Avon, no I don't have much to substantiate this. It's a straight up personal reaction. I can't visualise anyone remembering a gory advert when sitting behind the wheel, drunk, about to start their car.

Or is it maybe that you even want to prevent prohibition drinking and driving in combination, because you like to practice that yourself and don't want to change your habits on weekend? smokers, I remember, also easily come with excuses about their personal right and free unfolding of their personality when they are confronted with prohibitions in places, and demands to pay for their smoke-related diseases all by themselves instead of demanding the public to pay for that. They also complain about too restrictive rules, and an authoritarian state, and lacking tolerance of non-smokers. What's going on here, Skybird?
Seriously, this looks like a very unusual line of argument, founded on an argument that I didn't make. Where am I complaining about a lack of tolerance for drink driving? All these "also"s, point me back to the first instance, will you? Or just get to the point already.
I have never driven while drunk. I've almost fallen asleep at the wheel, and it's scared the hell out of me. I'd call myself a careful driver. I also smoke. But, of course, there's no way for you to have known that.

Another objection I have to these is the impact on those who have lost loved ones to drunk-driving, and the desensitising effect of repeated violence. Can violent car crashes have an effect when every summer, theatres are filled with people paying to watch ever more violent car chases or crashes?
I'm not arguing for a form of censorship, just against advertising that I feel does little to work against a major societal problem.
Countries using shock banners on cigarette boxes report good experiences with that. The quota of young people stopping to smoke and not even starting to smoke significantly rose. Look at the target group here.
Drivers who will drive while drunk are a subgroup of all Drivers. Most drivers will not choose to drive, even when very drunk. Common sense can override alcohol. I imagine most drunk drivers do it often, like you ask of me, maybe every weekend.

Now smokers are different. Cancer is unregulated cell division, yeah? There is no smoker who chooses to develop a throat tumour.
*as yet unspoken abjection*
Agreed, smokers can choose to smoke heavily or lightly. But there is a much smaller difference of risk than a driver who chooses not to drive drunk. A smoker can reduce the chance of cancer from 80% to 65% by cutting down, but a driver can reduce the possibility to <1% by choosing never to drive drunk.

Gore on cigarette packs and gore on drunk-driving ads are related, but still rather dissimiliar in their effect, I would argue.

Traffic experts say that showing drivers of all age groups videos with horror crashes after they had been waved out of the traffic line, show far greater insight than those who are just being lectured in words. That is controlled, limited exposition to an audience of admitted dangerous drivers. Very different to these adverts, I think. In my original post I refer to trying t change society as opposed to small groups of bad drivers.

[Skybird]

Too harsh, too authoritarian, to less liberal a reality for you again? As a psychologist I must tell you that you are wrong, and that we know from arranged experimnetal situations as well as from reality. Shock tactics, if only going deep enough, can replace a thousand words. As a user I must tell you you're being an ass.
My objection is that I don't see these adverts as being very successful. To the standard person, who does not drive while drunk, they give every appearance of a hard-hitting campaign. Mostly, because they reinforce our ideas about drunk drivers (there's a post up therre about shooting them). In the mental rush to differentiate ourselves from those who drive when incapable, I think we overestimate the effectiveness of gory shock adverts. We (I'm assuming most people here don't drive drunk) are not the intended audience here.
I didn't make the nature of my objection very clear in my original post, true. But neither did I go off on what you might call a stereotypically liberal, anto-authoritarian rant. But you seem to think I did. Or you were looking to get an insult in, whatever.

I just react to a pattern I perceive in your reactions and comments. You seem to be always "anti" and "against", whenever a not fully voluntary, obligatory, mandatory, ordered, hierarchic, effect-oriented, not unlimited tolerant action or decision is suggested. I have seen this being camouflaged as "humanism" or "free choice" or "freedom" too often, where in reality it was just meant to endlessly evade taking responsibility, accepting to make decisions and accept the consequence of this, and not to act in any way substantially, but do nothing and just hope for the best outcome from this comfortable phlegmatism - but this with surprising agility. I don't know how old you are, but I see you like a juvenile, if not by body so then by mind, who is "anti" authority and "anti" hierarchy for ideological and/or protesting reasons, like children are "anti" to the rules of their parents. It reminds me of the "68er" generation, or the schoolgeneration I experienced myself in the 80s, what was called in Germany the "Null-Bock-Generation". This impression I have formed not over days or weeks, but months, if not years, and due to many opportunities when you commented on one or several of my posts, or that of others.

So I see you quite a bit more differentiated than just calling you a lefty or liberal. :smug: I do not call you like that, but describe you as someone having a principle problem with any kind of authority and hierarchy and obligation. Sorry if that hurts or angers you, but that's how I see you -on the basis of discussions here on this board.

[Tchocky]

I just react to a pattern I perceive in your reactions and comments. You seem to be always "anti" and "against", whenever a not fully voluntary, obligatory, mandatory, ordered, hierarchic, effect-oriented, not unlimited tolerant action or decision is suggested. Is there any way I can respond to this without seeming to be anti/against? Who knows?
What am I against? Implied allegations of criminal activity, accusations of moral hypocrisy through red herrings. All that stuff. Dancing around something without saying it directly. When I asked you to get to the point, it turns out that it had nothing to do with drink driving adverts. That's a bit confusing, and yes, a bit annoying.
I don't know how old you are, but I see you like a juvenile, if not by body so then by mind, who is "anti" authority and "anti" hierarchy for ideological and/or protesting reasons, like children are "anti" to the rules of their parents. See me however you want. That's your prerogative. It's irritating that you seem to have to insult me along with this. And suggest that I'm saying what I'm saying in order to continue breaking the law. Yep, I should grow up.

It reminds me of the "68er" generation, or the schoolgeneration I experienced myself in the 80s, what was called in Germany the "Null-Bock-Generation". This impression I have formed not over days or weeks, but months, if not years, and due to many opportunities when you commented on one or several of my posts, or that of others. Well that's the way of forums. We all have ideas about other posters in our heads, and there's not much we can do to change that. Except post.

So I see you quite a bit more differentiated than just calling you a lefty or liberal. :smug: I do not call you like that, but describe you as someone having a principle problem with any kind of authority and hierarchy and obligation. Sorry if that hurts or angers you, but that's how I see you -on the basis of discussions here on this board. But you didn't differentiate in this case. I'm not hurt/angered, that would be a stretch. I am curious, however.
I have seen this being camouflaged as "humanism" or "free choice" or "freedom" too often, where in reality it was just meant to endlessly evade taking responsibility, accepting to make decisions and accept the consequence of this, and not to act in any way substantially, but do nothing and just hope for the best outcome from this comfortable phlegmatism - but this with surprising agility. Alright, you've seen this in other people. Well, that's fine. It also doesn't have a whole lot to do with the topic at hand.

Tchocky != Other people.
just like
Skybird != Other people.

[Skybird]

Second time in a row you mention I intentionally insulted you. I had no such intention. You asked, I answered. Also, I answered to your claim that shock tactis do not work. but that is wrong, as a matter of fact. I know that from experimental settings, and I remember that statistics on young smokers also showed a decline in youngster getting smokers or carrying on with it when being confronted with very severe visual material. And lastly I referred to police' experiences when using even physical feedback on how a crash feels, and that police says that "confrontation therapy", to summarize it, works better for them than just verbal lecturing.

And finally, I did not call anybody here an ass. ;) you may want to take that into account before continuing to tell me that I intentionally offended you. You tripped over a wire, and thus my reaction, and that's it.

[Tchocky]

Second time in a row you mention I intentionally insulted you. I had no such intention. You asked, I answered. OK. I can't pretend to know the intentions behind every post, I guess I was wrong here.
Also, I answered to your claim that shock tactis do not work. but that is wrong, as a matter of fact. You didn't really answer it at all, you supplied an appeal to authority and a platitude. I don't doubt your experience, but I think the examples that you mention are sufficiently dissimiliar to drink driving. Dissimiliar enough to negate direct comparison.
I know that from experimental settings, and I remember that statistics on young smokers also showed a decline in youngster getting smokers or carrying on with it when being confronted with very severe visual material. And lastly I referred to police' experiences when using even physical feedback on how a crash feels, and that police says that "confrontation therapy", to summarize it, works better for them than just verbal lecturing. I've already responded to this, you're quoting yourself. I should have clarified that I meant shock tactics like these drink driving ads. My making a blanket statement wasn't helpful.

And finally, I did not call anybody here an ass. ;) you may want to take that into account before continuing to tell me that I intentionally offended you. You tripped over a wire, and thus my reaction, and that's it.I called you an ass because that's what I thought. I was mistaken. I'm not proceeding on a set course regardless of what you post, Skybird. You clarified your intentions, and that ends that. A discourse on my online persona does not do that. Anyway.

[Skybird]

I called you an ass because that's what I thought.
That's no excuse. Next time think silent.

[Onkel Neal]

My mom lost her sister (and her complete family: husband, unborn baby) due to a drunken driver. I lost my fiance due to a drunken driver. I reserve the right to beat up every f###ing a$$hole who tries to drive drunk under my eyes. And I will give my best in getting that job done, and then some. A warning penalty of 200 euros and one month without license is just too good and means nothing for such imbiciles.

If loss of license messes up that man's life and job - so be it. Nobody told him to act like a caveman.

Needless that I defend nil-promille rules for drivers. If you are to drive, no alcohol. It's the cleanest solution, invulnerable to physical variables, shape of day, moon phase and weather and season.

I agree with this man, 100%.:yep:

Drunk driving is worse than dogfighting. They should treat all DUI drivers like Michael Vick.

One thing I especially respected the Dutch and German Sub Club members for at our meetings, they always picked a "George" to drive and he would not drink at all.

[Skybird]

Drunk driving is worse than dogfighting. They should treat all DUI drivers like Michael Vick.

Hehe, I needed to google for that. :lol:

[The Avon Lady]

Drunk driving is worse than dogfighting. They should treat all DUI drivers like Michael Vick.
Actually, they should throw drunk drivers into a sealed room with a few agitated rotweillers and dobermans. :yep:

[TteFAboB]

My friends, I have the answer for you: Islam.

In Islam, we don't drink, at all. We don't have issues with drunk drivers and any detractor is put back in place with public floggings.

Embrace Islam and you'll be free of this disease.

[nikimcbee]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dv6NtJxzk-g
http://youtube.com/watch?v=09PQO08br7U&mode=related&search=


on a serious note: don't drive drunk, dumbass:shifty:

[The Avon Lady]

My friends, I have the answer for you: Islam.

In Islam, we don't drink, at all. We don't have issues with drunk drivers and any detractor is put back in place with public floggings.

Embrace Islam and you'll be free of this disease.
Johnny Burqa Black (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=00b_1188400700).

But not to worry! Muslim women are barred from driving. :D

[kiwi_2005]

My friends, I have the answer for you: Islam.

In Islam, we don't drink, at all. We don't have issues with drunk drivers and any detractor is put back in place with public floggings.

Embrace Islam and you'll be free of this disease.

I see the funny side of it, but islam would probably be a good solution for the drunk driver. A public flogging would be a good idea. :)

[The Avon Lady]

islam would probably be a good solution for the drunk driver. A public flogging would be a good idea. :)
Or chopping off their steering hands.

Flogging is just for yoru average at-home drunk. No driving necessary.

[bradclark1]

Or chopping off their steering hands
Right hand, right foot and can only drive stick shift.

[SUBMAN1]

KInd of pathetic, when you realize people die a senseless death at the hand of another........and it can come down to a number

I 100% agree. Maybe it should come down to the arresting officers discretion somehow? Then again, that is too big a box for a court room to handle - they have to put a number on it so as not to give any wiggle room to someone looking to get out of it.

-S

[Heibges]

My friends, I have the answer for you: Islam.

In Islam, we don't drink, at all. We don't have issues with drunk drivers and any detractor is put back in place with public floggings.

Embrace Islam and you'll be free of this disease.

Or Robert Heinlein? :D

Floggings in Public Square, and all that?

[SUBMAN1]

My friends, I have the answer for you: Islam.

In Islam, we don't drink, at all. We don't have issues with drunk drivers and any detractor is put back in place with public floggings.

Embrace Islam and you'll be free of this disease.

Crack smoker

[Penelope_Grey]

islam would probably be a good solution for the drunk driver. A public flogging would be a good idea. :) Or chopping off their steering hands.

Flogging is just for yoru average at-home drunk. No driving necessary.

You, Kiwi and bradclark of course have never been drunk or touched a drop of booze in your life naturally... :shifty:

[Skybird]

You, Kiwi and bradclark of course have never been drunk or touched a drop of booze in your life naturally... :shifty:
That is not the question. The question is wether or not they drove in that condition.

I assume everyone of us here has been filled up at least once in his life, even if it may have been for no other reason than juvenile curiosity. - Even me, and even twice! :lol:

Second question is if one makes a regular habit of being drunk, or not. comatose teenagers laying on the street is a problem in germany, and it is reported in Britain as well, and other countries. Tendency: upwards.

I reject total prohibition, but would see a culture of reason aiming for walking on the golen middle-way, and to act with moderation and responsebility: and that includes not to drive while having had alcohol. - What crazy stuff am I talking? "Culture of reason"...? :lol:

[Penelope_Grey]

With all due respect Skybird... No that is not the question... its your question... mine is up there in your quote box. THAT is the question. But do feel free to ask your own I mean sure... but don't correct mine... because I was perfectly happy with my question just as it was.

Im saying, AL and co want to flog drunks and cut hands off and all that... Im not a big fan of drunks and layabouts and especially drunk drivers myself... but god in heaven I certainly cannot criticise anybody for liking a dirink which seems to be the implications I get from there. If any of them have been drunk and I suspect the odds of that are near to certain so its a bit rich to say things like they have. If not and they have indeed spent a life of total sobriety, I apologise in advance.

If they were joking then god... talk about bad taste. As my brother said earlier on this thread... poor driving, whether caused by not concentrating or simple alcohol abuse, can be devastating to individuals and to family's.

[joea]

Penny, you took them seriously? TteFAboB started it with a joke about becoming Muslim, the rest just went with it. No one really wants to cut of hands...I...hope. :hmm: Anyway, I like to put a few away once in awhile...not get sloshed as that's no fun anymore. Honeslty though, so many people can't walk when they drink, why do they think they can drive a car??? :nope:

[The Avon Lady]

Sometimes I'd like to cut off the hands of forum posters who take ridiculous things seriously.

For the record, I've never been drunk. My parents taught me better. I will occassionally get slightly tipsy if I enjoy a glass of wine before eating something. Then I usually start bursting out in giggles. Envision the All in The Family episode when Edith went out to a "classy" restaurant and enjoyed the wine. :doh:

My husband, and now my older boys, get drunk exactly once a year, on the Jewish holiday of Purim. Here's why (http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1509) (and how), though I think the article uses Hebrew and Jewish terminology that needs to be understood as a prerequisite.

Otherwise, Judaism frowns upon excess drinking, as it does upon anything that is permissable but is done in excess.

And now.......................... back to our show! :D