If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 02:41:10 -0600, Brent P wrote: > >> You're weak. > No, I am not. And I bet, that if you were in my situation you would react > to this specific topic quite the same way I did. If you want to, I'll tell > you, why, but only by email, I will not post anything about it. I don't care. >> You tried to play hardball with the wrong person. > I am not trying to play hardball with anyone. I asked a question in good > faith, not thinking that you might recognize yourself so far in it that > you would feel the need to retaliate, least of all that you would do this. This is not a good faith question, it's an insult/accusation veiled as a question: -> From: "C.H." > -> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.road,alt.true-crime -> Subject: Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver? -> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:09:56 -0800 -> Message-ID: > <...> -> One question: Do you really need alcohol so bad that you are willing to -> risk your life and others'? -> From: "C.H." > -> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.road,alt.true-crime -> Subject: Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver? -> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:31:06 -0800 -> Message-ID: > <...> -> What you suffer from is called denial. You have a problem and you simply -> don't want to see it and thus every evidence of this problem must be -> wrong. <...> -> but if you really think drinking -> and driving is harmless, you need a reality check, and you need it before -> you hurt someone. |
Ads |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message
... > On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:08:53 -0600, Brent P wrote: > >> In article >, C.H. wrote: >> >>>> Fine, convince me. >> >>> Half of all accidents at night at least alcohol related. 1000 of 6000 >>> traffic deaths per year definitely alcohol related with an unknown but >>> supposedly rather large number of cases not checked. German TUEV >>> suspects >>> that almost half of all fatal accidents are either alcohol or drug >>> related. >> >> Alcohol related. This is like 'speed related'. > > Alcohol related means either the direct cause of the accident was alcohol, > or that alcohol at least precluded the driver from fixing the situation by > making an evasive maneuver. > >> Totally sober moron driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian >> crossing the street on his walk signal. The ped had 2 beers in the last >> hour and half. Bingo alcohol related. > > The German police is significantly more thorough than the police around > here in determining the real cause of the crash even if one or both > drivers were intoxicated. So the numbers are pretty accurate. > >>> http://www.psy-online.de/mpu/wirkung.htm >> >> A flyer in German. the kind of agenda driven thing we see here in the >> USA all the time. > > The data is taken from the state medical psychological assessment (MPU) > that a drunk driver has to go through if he wants his license back after > a DUI. So it is pretty accurate. > >>> Quote: >>> From .03%: Distances are estimated wrong >> >> I can't estimate distances in feet or meters correctly SOBER. I can >> estimate them in my-car-can-stop-from-here-to-there just fine. > > ... and this stopping distance estimation capability drastically decreases > from .03%. Maybe you think you still can do it but real life tests have > shown again and again that people in reality can't. > >>> From .05%: Red doesn't register with the brain any more. >> >> I find this very hard to believe. > > Nevertheless it is true. Red loses its signal function (you still can tell > it is red after looking at it for a bit but the 'eeek, the light is red' > goes away, thus the risk of running a red light drastically increases). > >>> Bright-dark-reaction of the Iris slowed down >> >> Dangerously so? Slower than say an 80 year old compared with a 20 year >> old? > > Yes, dangerously so, which is why at night in almost half of all fatal > accidents at least one of the drivers was intoxicated. Which means in OVER half, all of the drivers were lethally sober. I love those stats: 87 people killed this year in XXX County! 31 of them alcohol-related! - So let me get this straight, 56 of them were sober-related? :-) |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message
... > On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:08:53 -0600, Brent P wrote: > >> In article >, C.H. wrote: >> >>>> Fine, convince me. >> >>> Half of all accidents at night at least alcohol related. 1000 of 6000 >>> traffic deaths per year definitely alcohol related with an unknown but >>> supposedly rather large number of cases not checked. German TUEV >>> suspects >>> that almost half of all fatal accidents are either alcohol or drug >>> related. >> >> Alcohol related. This is like 'speed related'. > > Alcohol related means either the direct cause of the accident was alcohol, > or that alcohol at least precluded the driver from fixing the situation by > making an evasive maneuver. > >> Totally sober moron driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian >> crossing the street on his walk signal. The ped had 2 beers in the last >> hour and half. Bingo alcohol related. > > The German police is significantly more thorough than the police around > here in determining the real cause of the crash even if one or both > drivers were intoxicated. So the numbers are pretty accurate. > >>> http://www.psy-online.de/mpu/wirkung.htm >> >> A flyer in German. the kind of agenda driven thing we see here in the >> USA all the time. > > The data is taken from the state medical psychological assessment (MPU) > that a drunk driver has to go through if he wants his license back after > a DUI. So it is pretty accurate. > >>> Quote: >>> From .03%: Distances are estimated wrong >> >> I can't estimate distances in feet or meters correctly SOBER. I can >> estimate them in my-car-can-stop-from-here-to-there just fine. > > ... and this stopping distance estimation capability drastically decreases > from .03%. Maybe you think you still can do it but real life tests have > shown again and again that people in reality can't. > >>> From .05%: Red doesn't register with the brain any more. >> >> I find this very hard to believe. > > Nevertheless it is true. Red loses its signal function (you still can tell > it is red after looking at it for a bit but the 'eeek, the light is red' > goes away, thus the risk of running a red light drastically increases). > >>> Bright-dark-reaction of the Iris slowed down >> >> Dangerously so? Slower than say an 80 year old compared with a 20 year >> old? > > Yes, dangerously so, which is why at night in almost half of all fatal > accidents at least one of the drivers was intoxicated. Which means in OVER half, all of the drivers were lethally sober. I love those stats: 87 people killed this year in XXX County! 31 of them alcohol-related! - So let me get this straight, 56 of them were sober-related? :-) |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message
... > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:37:43 -0600, Brent P wrote: > >> In article >, C.H. wrote: >> >>> If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough >>> money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight. >> >> You don't seem to understand the concept that there are NO CABS. He could >> have a $1000 to spend on a cab ride, but without the cabs being >> around.... > > Then call a friend and offer him a 20 to drive you to your bar. Or if you > absolutely have to have alcohol at a bar, move somewhere where there are > either taxicabs or bars in walking distance. That's crazy talk. If I'm too drunk to drive I'm FAR too drunk to WALK home! ;-) |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message
... > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:37:43 -0600, Brent P wrote: > >> In article >, C.H. wrote: >> >>> If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough >>> money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight. >> >> You don't seem to understand the concept that there are NO CABS. He could >> have a $1000 to spend on a cab ride, but without the cabs being >> around.... > > Then call a friend and offer him a 20 to drive you to your bar. Or if you > absolutely have to have alcohol at a bar, move somewhere where there are > either taxicabs or bars in walking distance. That's crazy talk. If I'm too drunk to drive I'm FAR too drunk to WALK home! ;-) |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:26:57 -0600, Brent P wrote: > >> I don't care. > > Well, that at least fits your personality. this isn't about your personal motivation and you aren't going to share it. So there is no reason to care about it. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:26:57 -0600, Brent P wrote: > >> I don't care. > > Well, that at least fits your personality. this isn't about your personal motivation and you aren't going to share it. So there is no reason to care about it. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
C.H. > wrote: > >If you think an alcoholic has a choice (without getting help) you need to >read up on the subject a bit (physical and mental drug dependency). Of course the alcoholic has a choice. Simple one, really: to drink, or not to drink. The complication is that the latter choice is accompanied by far more pain than the former. It's still a choice. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
C.H. > wrote: > >If you think an alcoholic has a choice (without getting help) you need to >read up on the subject a bit (physical and mental drug dependency). Of course the alcoholic has a choice. Simple one, really: to drink, or not to drink. The complication is that the latter choice is accompanied by far more pain than the former. It's still a choice. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
C.H. > wrote: >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:13:49 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote: > >> In article >, >> C.H. > wrote: >>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:29:59 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote: >>> >>>If you in any way feel compelled to drink you are an alcoholic, because >>>that's what an alcoholic is, a person who _has_ to drink. >> >> You trivialize alcoholism. A desire to drink isn't alcoholism, any >> more than a desire for ice cream is an addiction. > >Being compelled and having a desire are two different things. Please don't >mix these up. #1: It's not a matter of being compelled, it's a matter of _feeling_ compelled. #2: In the widest sense -- and that IS how you used the term -- a desire and a feeling of compulsion are the same thing. >> It ain't quite that simple. I don't have to drink. But I want to >> drink. > >Nothing wrong with that. Except that you and the other neo-prohibitionists want to make it impractical. >> I do have to drive if I want to get anywhere. > >No, you don't. There are taxicabs, public transportation or carpooling. Thank you, Marie Antoinette. >If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough >money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight. Not a matter of 20 bucks. A matter of no cabs at all. And I rarely spend $20 on alcohol for myself at a sitting. Besides, how am I going to get my car back? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
528i vs 530i vs 540i USA Versions | FSJ | BMW | 37 | January 16th 05 06:38 PM |
MFFY Driver Get His Come-Uppance | Dave Head | Driving | 25 | December 25th 04 06:07 AM |
Speeding: the fundamental cause of MFFY | Daniel W. Rouse Jr. | Driving | 82 | December 23rd 04 01:10 AM |
There I was, Driving in the Right Lane... | Dave Head | Driving | 110 | December 18th 04 02:07 AM |