A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #321  
Old January 14th 05, 07:01 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


C.H. wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:06:21 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
> >
> >>

http://www.dvr.de/download/aaba3fa8-...c374c02148.pdf
> >
> > There, that wasn't so tough.

>
> And I said that it was exactly where?


I had the idea you found it difficult because it took you 2-3 rounds of
posting to finally generate what I originally requested. I never
claimed you said it was tough. I decided it must be tough because you
couldn't seem to figure it out the very first time.

> >> Either you know drunk driving is dangerous and still complain

about
> >> efforts to decrease this danger or you think drunk driving is
> >> harmless. Which one is it going to be?

> >
> > False choice. There are more than two choices - and this again

reeks of
> > the "have you stopped beating your wife" sort of arguments.

>
> Your nose needs a smell adjustment. Maybe your own smell has offset

it
> somewhat?


Are you this rude all the time, or just in usenet, where you can hide
behind your monitor?

> > If you cannot rationally discuss an issue, then maybe you should
> > refrain.

>
> The question is valid. Why don't you simply answer it instead of

trying to
> weasel out?


The question is *not* valid, because there are more choices than the
ones you offered. False choice, or false dichotomies, are logic
errors. When you can figure out how to be rational, please feel free
to have a discussion.

> >> So what other indicators do you see? Other than lab testing the

person
> >> for hours?

> >
> > I'm sure you could come up with a bunch of tests that could be
> > administered right at the roadside, that would only take a few

minutes.
> > Good, qualitative testing.

>
> I am interested to hear what you have in mind. 'I am sure you

could...'
> does not cut it.


I'm allowing you to use your brain.

There are tests that can be administered, by non-scientists, that can,
in a few minutes, roughly determine someone's level of intoxication.
These can be administered right at the side of the road, and often are.

Think a little bit, and you'll know exactly what I mean.

> >> > What if the person has measurable BAC but is not drunk?

>
> >> How does the person know whether they have a measurable BAC but

are not
> >> drunk or whether they are just too drunk to know they are drunk?

> >
> > Doesn't really answer the question, does it?

>
> It gives a reason why you can't simply say, 'ok, you think you are

not
> drunk, so you can drive.'


An invalid reason. A measurable BAC does not imply loss of reasoning,
nor the inability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

> Most people who are totally blastered, think
> they can still drive. And many do.


You don't go directly from one glass of wine with dinner to "totally
blastered" (whatever "blastered" means - I assume some kind of German
idiom for "really intoxicated.")

Anyway, one glass of wine will cause measureable BAC, but not
necessarily loss of ability to adequately operate a motor vehicle.

> >> I went through the first two pages and didn't find any link to the

> > study.
> >
> > Hence the term "secondary references." If you are going to reply,

at
> > least try and reading what I write before typing.

>
> Then deliver the primary reference. Secondary references by sources

on the
> web are about as accurate as tarot.


If you don't like them, then find the thing yourself. I don't know
Swedish, so I can't get at the primary reference, and the translation
to English is obviously not available in e-copy.

The fact that all those different folks used the same numbers strongly
implies that a real document backs them up. And these aren't "web
sources" but links to newspaper articles. Before, you believed what
was in the papers. Now you all of a sudden don't?

How odd.

> >> If the study exists you should have no problem posting the URL.

> >
> > The study is quoted by quite a number of different sources,

including
> > newspapers and .edu addresses. In addition, I have read the study
> > myself. If you want to dig up an e-copy, be my guest.

>
> I have seen so much bull**** at .edu adresses that I mostly discount

what
> I find there. Secondary references are worthless.


You can be as dismissive as you want, it matters not at all. Like any
other person with a closed mind and open mouth, facts don't seem to
penetrate whatever preconceived notions exist.

> > If the multiple secondary references aren't good enough, fine by

me.
> > What was that about "hair in the soup," again?

>
> I delivered the primary reference you asked for.


A .pdf in German. Yeah, it was useful. </sarcasm>

But you finally did deliver. Oddly, the original thing you delivered
was supposed to be OK enough for me...

Talk about a hypocrite.

> >> I did find a reference, though, that says that the 'hangover' in
> >> reality probably is leftover alcohol in the system:
> >>
> >> http://autonet.ca/EdmontonDrive/Stor...m?StoryID=8931

> >
> > An opinion piece. Are you now picking and choosing the references

that
> > suit your preconceptions?

>
> So your secondary references are okay, but mine isn't although it

concerns
> the same subject? Amusing.


It's not the same subject. It's not based on research, and has nothing
to do with the Swedish research. If secondary references are good
enough, then they are good enough. If not, then they are not. Pick a
position and stick to it.

> >> > At what BAC does this assessment become impossible?
> >>
> >> Early enough to make people think that they are still on the safe

> > side.
> >
> > That is not quantitative.

>
> That's all that matters.


No, I want a quantitative number.

At what BAC does self-assessment become impossible?

> >> > Ah, but "driving drunk" is a moving target. In fact, the

definition
> >> > of "drunk" seems to shift with time and location. Hardly the

absolut
> >> > thing you present it to be.
> >>
> >> Absolut will make you drunk in fairly short order. :-)

> >
> > You caught my pun. Nice work.

>
> It was a good one for a change.


Uh, for a change? I don't habitually make puns.

You have an answer for everything, don't you?

> >> And where did the definition of 'drunk' shift?

> >
> > In different states, DUI is defined differently, and has been

higher in
> > the past in most every state.

>
> Smoking has been thought harmless in the past. So has drunk driving

for
> many years. Doesn't mean either is.


You asked for when the definition shifted, and I gave it. The reply
you just made doesn't have anything to do with anything.

> >> > You are claiming that "influence" begins at 0.03%.
> >>
> >> Yes, the influence begins at .03% or even earlier.

> >
> > Your opinion. If you wish to parse every word, I suggest you start

at
> > the beginning, and not flail around post after post trying to make

a
> > weak argument stronger.

>
> Read the material I have shown you. It clearly says that impairment

begins
> at .03% or even earlier. Until you find a halfway credible study

saying
> something different my argument is supported while yours isn't.


"For some individuals." You are reading the part you like, and
ignoring the part you don't. Your own document supports my position!

> Or do you think it is acceptable to go through a red light 3 seconds

after
> it turned red, just because there was a bozo who went through the

same
> light 4 seconds after red?


"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

> Every driver has to drive as best they can to minimize danger on the

road.
> Driving drunk is not conductive to driving as best one can, so it is

to be
> avoided.


I completely agree. But enacting legislation that outlaws
sub-impairment level BAC is just more LCD nanny-statism.

> > The bottom line is this: your line of logic leads us to a

situation
> > where a person can have one (1) drink with dinner, and be subject

to
> > very strict and punative DUI laws, without any proof of actual
> > impairment for the individual in question. While this may not

affect
> > you in any way, that is not a rationale for increased stringence

within
> > the law.

>
> There are lots of laws, that don't take into account the individual

in
> question.


And there are a lot of laws that don't.

>
>
> The law needs to be consistent, not dependent on the whim of some cop

or
> judge.


Uh, do you have the slightest clue what a judge does? And right now,
we are at the whim of cops on who gets pulled over and tested, and who
doesn't.

> What would you base your impairment rules on? BAC is bad enough

because
> people have no way of checking whether they are below the limit and

the
> BAC may even climb after getting in the car as more alcohol is drawn

from
> your stomach, so with drinking you can never be quite sure whether

you are
> still legal or not.


There are external devices that can constantly measure BAC. Or, use
the common sense of applying the knowledge I already have on ethanol
uptake and rate of catabolism.

> But a roadside test would be much worse. Imagine the cop doesn't like

your
> nose and just writes 'failed' on the test and you lose your license.

Now
> imagine you are sober and the same thing happens. That's the way they

used
> to do it in Russia or China. I don't want that to happen over here.


Gosh, maybe there might be some device that you could, oh, exhale into
that would show that you are below a legal limit? Naw, it'd never
work.

The current trend toward lower and lower limits is approaching a
situation where you catch folks who are not impaired, and yet still
have measurable BAC. Under your suggestion of "8 hours from bottle to
throttle," I could drink a beer, and drive three hours later, have a
measurable BAC and be what - jailed? stiffly fined? not because I am
impaired, but because I exceeded some arbitrary standard. Sort of like
current speed limit laws.

> > Explicitly, I am very much against impaired driving (no matter how

that
> > impairment occurs), but at the same time, very low absolute limits

to
> > BAC don't make sense, because not every reacts to alcohol the same.


>
> There needs to be a legal limit and it needs to be about where in the
> average person impairment starts.


There is not such animal as the "average person." And even your own
reference states that the 0.03 standard you promote is not an average
result.

> > And using LCD thinking is how we got into the no-training,

no-education
> > nanny-statism driving situation we find ourselves in currently.

HAND,
>
> With that argument you can get rid of just about any law. To manage a
> civilized society there has to be a certain amount of laws. That

there are
> too many laws in many areas is correct


Which only implies that the laws that impact you negatively should be
done away with, right?

> but that doesn't mean that in
> other areas, specifically areas, where self assessment and self

control
> are already weakened by alcohol, relaxing the law would work.


I don't recall ever advocating for relaxed standards. Ever-stricter
standards are what I am objecting to.

Yet another instance of "have you stopped beating your wife." Knock it
off.

E.P.

Ads
  #322  
Old January 14th 05, 07:06 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Bernd Felsche wrote:
> "C.H." > writes:
>
> >I have a problem with bull****ters and liars like you.

>
> You simply appear to have a problem with _everybody_.


Boy, that's the truth.

Does anyone ever agree with this guy? I don't think I've found but one
or two usenet postings where anyone has defended his POV.

And notice that he never misses an opportunity to show how tough he is.
At every mention of physical confrontation, there he is, saying how
he'd handle himself.

I'm beginning to get the idea it's merely another usenet troller, bored
at work and getting paid to screw around on the net.

I wonder if his employer would approve of his on-line activities?
Hmmmm.

HAND,

E.P.

  #323  
Old January 14th 05, 07:06 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Bernd Felsche wrote:
> "C.H." > writes:
>
> >I have a problem with bull****ters and liars like you.

>
> You simply appear to have a problem with _everybody_.


Boy, that's the truth.

Does anyone ever agree with this guy? I don't think I've found but one
or two usenet postings where anyone has defended his POV.

And notice that he never misses an opportunity to show how tough he is.
At every mention of physical confrontation, there he is, saying how
he'd handle himself.

I'm beginning to get the idea it's merely another usenet troller, bored
at work and getting paid to screw around on the net.

I wonder if his employer would approve of his on-line activities?
Hmmmm.

HAND,

E.P.

  #324  
Old January 14th 05, 07:10 PM
Olaf Gustafson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:40:47 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> wrote:

>Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
>>
>> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
>> > "C.H." > wrote:
>> >> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> >> > "C.H." > wrote:
>> >> >> Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Are you sure you're not drunk right now?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes. However, I am by no means sure that you are not drunk.
>> >> >
>> >> > Chris, are you sure that you are not arguing with a bunch of drunks? :-]
>> >>
>> >> By now I am pretty sure I _am_ arguing with a bunch of drunks.
>> >
>> >I've been wondering about this "Olaf"... is that a screen name?
>> >It sounds like the sound of violent regurgitation...
>> >
>> >O L A F !
>> >
>> >One of the results of having too much to drink...

>>
>> Fool

>
>So you're not disagreeing that it is that a screen name, that sounds
>like the sound of violent regurgitation, resulting from having too much
>to drink?


No, I'm not going to dignify it by formally disagreeing with it
because the notion is utterly ridiculous.


I'm not going to waste my time trying to make fun of your name either.
Your idiocy does a good enough job of making fun of yourself as it is.

Adios, fool.
  #325  
Old January 14th 05, 07:10 PM
Olaf Gustafson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:40:47 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> wrote:

>Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
>>
>> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
>> > "C.H." > wrote:
>> >> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> >> > "C.H." > wrote:
>> >> >> Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Are you sure you're not drunk right now?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes. However, I am by no means sure that you are not drunk.
>> >> >
>> >> > Chris, are you sure that you are not arguing with a bunch of drunks? :-]
>> >>
>> >> By now I am pretty sure I _am_ arguing with a bunch of drunks.
>> >
>> >I've been wondering about this "Olaf"... is that a screen name?
>> >It sounds like the sound of violent regurgitation...
>> >
>> >O L A F !
>> >
>> >One of the results of having too much to drink...

>>
>> Fool

>
>So you're not disagreeing that it is that a screen name, that sounds
>like the sound of violent regurgitation, resulting from having too much
>to drink?


No, I'm not going to dignify it by formally disagreeing with it
because the notion is utterly ridiculous.


I'm not going to waste my time trying to make fun of your name either.
Your idiocy does a good enough job of making fun of yourself as it is.

Adios, fool.
  #326  
Old January 14th 05, 07:21 PM
Scott M. Kozel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
> > Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
> >> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
> >> > "C.H." > wrote:
> >> >> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
> >> >> > "C.H." > wrote:
> >> >> >> Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Are you sure you're not drunk right now?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes. However, I am by no means sure that you are not drunk.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Chris, are you sure that you are not arguing with a bunch of drunks? :-]
> >> >>
> >> >> By now I am pretty sure I _am_ arguing with a bunch of drunks.
> >> >
> >> >I've been wondering about this "Olaf"... is that a screen name?
> >> >It sounds like the sound of violent regurgitation...
> >> >
> >> >O L A F !
> >> >
> >> >One of the results of having too much to drink...
> >>
> >> Fool

> >
> >So you're not disagreeing that it is that a screen name, that sounds
> >like the sound of violent regurgitation, resulting from having too much
> >to drink?

>
> No, I'm not going to dignify it by formally disagreeing with it
> because the notion is utterly ridiculous.
>
> I'm not going to waste my time trying to make fun of your name either.
> Your idiocy does a good enough job of making fun of yourself as it is.


Uh-huh. Your barrages of postarrhea, which you have been spraying all
over this newsgroup, speaks for itself.

Are you sure you're not drunk right now?

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
  #327  
Old January 14th 05, 07:21 PM
Scott M. Kozel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
> > Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
> >> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
> >> > "C.H." > wrote:
> >> >> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
> >> >> > "C.H." > wrote:
> >> >> >> Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Are you sure you're not drunk right now?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes. However, I am by no means sure that you are not drunk.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Chris, are you sure that you are not arguing with a bunch of drunks? :-]
> >> >>
> >> >> By now I am pretty sure I _am_ arguing with a bunch of drunks.
> >> >
> >> >I've been wondering about this "Olaf"... is that a screen name?
> >> >It sounds like the sound of violent regurgitation...
> >> >
> >> >O L A F !
> >> >
> >> >One of the results of having too much to drink...
> >>
> >> Fool

> >
> >So you're not disagreeing that it is that a screen name, that sounds
> >like the sound of violent regurgitation, resulting from having too much
> >to drink?

>
> No, I'm not going to dignify it by formally disagreeing with it
> because the notion is utterly ridiculous.
>
> I'm not going to waste my time trying to make fun of your name either.
> Your idiocy does a good enough job of making fun of yourself as it is.


Uh-huh. Your barrages of postarrhea, which you have been spraying all
over this newsgroup, speaks for itself.

Are you sure you're not drunk right now?

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
  #328  
Old January 14th 05, 07:31 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Mike Z. Helm > wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:18:23 -0800, "C.H." >
>
>>
>>> But it IS okay to drink a few.

>>
>>Unfortunately yes - and a lot of people die because of this.

>
>Maybe they should do some cocaine to keep them alert when they hit the
>road after a few drinks.


Probably would work, but caffeine is more readily available. To most
people, anyway :-).


  #329  
Old January 14th 05, 07:31 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Mike Z. Helm > wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:18:23 -0800, "C.H." >
>
>>
>>> But it IS okay to drink a few.

>>
>>Unfortunately yes - and a lot of people die because of this.

>
>Maybe they should do some cocaine to keep them alert when they hit the
>road after a few drinks.


Probably would work, but caffeine is more readily available. To most
people, anyway :-).


  #330  
Old January 14th 05, 07:41 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Bernd Felsche > wrote:
>"C.H." > writes:
>
>>Apparently some people need a flamewar to prove themselves. I just
>>read the last 10 messages and there is nothing but insults, flames
>>and attempts to prove you guys are better than I.

>
>And there was me thinking you don't read what you post.
>Apologies.
>
>>I don't see any point in continuing.

>
>You want to stop digging just because your spade's melting in the
>magma?


If he keeps digging from where he is, he's going to be posting from
your neck of the woods soon enough.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
528i vs 530i vs 540i USA Versions FSJ BMW 37 January 16th 05 07:38 PM
MFFY Driver Get His Come-Uppance Dave Head Driving 25 December 25th 04 07:07 AM
Speeding: the fundamental cause of MFFY Daniel W. Rouse Jr. Driving 82 December 23rd 04 02:10 AM
There I was, Driving in the Right Lane... Dave Head Driving 110 December 18th 04 03:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.