How to get out of a DUI

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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=sunvalleyslim]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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 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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

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.

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

[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]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Back to seriousness, a few years ago here they were broadcasting don't drive and drive commercials like .

Why they stopped broadcasting them I'll never understand.

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.