Re: Drinking and Driving As several people have said, in the long run stuff like texting probably WILL be punished as severely. IMO texting whist driving should be a 12 month ban the same as drunk driving. ATM, over here, it's 3 point on the license and it takes 12 points to get a 12 month ban so we need to be moving the 'goalposts' over a period of time. Maybe making it a 3 month ban instead of 3 points might be a good start? But, again, it's the intention of someone who demonstrably sets out to break the law that's a big part of the issue for me. You noticed that too, eh? I didn't say it wasn't. All I was trying to point out is that some of the distraction data, (regarding stuff like changing satnav settings and suchlike), hasn't been gathered for as long as some OTHER stuff. If we're to change laws we need to be pretty damn sure it's for a reason that can be shown to be satisfactory to the general public as otherwise the laws will be largely ignored. Actually it's not ALL about that. It's a combination of aerodynamics, the torque curve and power output of the engine, rolling resistance and a few other things.
Re: Drinking and Driving Hate it all you want, and yeah, I'm not a huge fan either, but Stilton is right in this case. You and minerva's ever shifting arguments are rooted mostly in emotion, faulty premises and a whole catalog of logical fallacies.
Re: Drinking and Driving no, you didn't. stop taking people for stupid! taking a page out of the oil-sponsered anti-science book, I see. again, since you seemed to have missed it, we KNOW it's dangerous. we have the proof, and we've had it for a long time. I have no idea what you are on about! the aerodynamic sweet spot is all about aerodynamic. the overall most efficient speed for the car is of course a combination of a lot of factors, thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Re: Drinking and Driving Unfortunately, with some people, it seems I'm bang on the money. My complete quote was... So, in the context of a thread where people are discussing data about comparisons between drunk drivers and, say, texting, (unless you wish to pursue your 'imaginative' idea that drunk driving is less dangerous than reading road signs), it's perfectly obvious THAT'S what I'm talking about. OIL sponsored??? WTF? Rubbish! We haven't had data relating to distractions from things like texting 'for a long time'. We've got data relating to some stuff like 'road furniture', using phones for calls and fiddling with the radio, that kind of thing. The point being that we need to break these things down part because they're NOT all the same and if we try and argue they are, people won't believe it because they know it's not true. Texting is a lot more dangerous than switching stations on a radio, for instance, and ANYONE who's driven will agree. Then maybe you could simply ask instead of making smart-arse and snide comments? Just a thought! You said you weren't sure if modern cars were more fuel efficient at 80kph than at 120kph and they obviously, as the graph I supplied showed.
i want a legal system that isn't hamstrung by cases that cannot be won. right now it's illegal to text and drive but if you increase the penalties significantly it will have the effect of making the process of litigation more cumbersome. if putting more traffic cameras out there makes for a more robust economy, i'm all for it. bring it on! i don't text, for what it's worth. i'm not sure what "toes testers" are but i think that they can be rehabilitated with the proper orthotics. caring about the harm caused isn't the same as wanting to punish people for doing wrong. wow. and i thought that telling people to bugger off was less than respectful. shows what i know.
Re: Drinking and Driving Honest question. Could you point out where my actual argument has shifted, gotten emotional, or been based on faulty premises or a logical fallacy?
At that point, it's generally too late and the person, should they survive, rarely has the insurance or financial means to come close to covering the physical damage they do, let alone anything else.
Apparently, from the outset Where I get your argument is around the law of diminishing returns regarding enforcement of DUI. We can quibble over BAC level, legality of spot checks ad infinatum, but arguments that DUI is less dangerous than other auto collision causes are really disingenuous and tend to ignore the historical record. Sure, but the same applies to DUI cases. I see no reason why any driver should be allowed on the road without the means or insurance to cover a worst case scenario. The reality is that a driver's license allows people to operate a very dangerous piece of machinery - and we're only really serious about the most grievous misuse of that privilege (DUI). What surprises me is that MADD and other similar organizations haven't broadened their appeals to cover more 'distracted driving' scenarios, considering their whole raison d'etre is about the victim support and stopping impaired driving. To me, no matter the impairment (e.g. Alcohol, prescription pain killers, texting, watching Justin Beiber videos, or eating breakfast) the punishment should be the same as being over the legal BAC limit without causing any harm. The problem then becomes one of enforcement, and not just catching the lowest hanging fruit. Right now the enforcement focus is too much about catching the people who are easily prosecuted, and less about road safety in general, and the current statistics already posted indicate a greater focus on these more difficult to enforce issues is needed.
Re: Drinking and Driving I wasn't comparing anything to drink driving, I was objection to the idea we don't have data on distractions and it's all supposition. and you first state that it's all supposition and then you concede that data is available but hasn't been collected for as long as others. quite a difference, don't you think? you know, don't do anything at all about climate change until we are 2000% sure it's caused by humans. this tactic. again, same tactic. we don't need to qualify these things, it's nonsense. you lack some fundamental knowledge about how traffic laws are made. they are not made only on some strict technical scientific criteria, they are to a large degree psychological. speed limits for example are always set about 20kph higher then is deemed safe for the least safe cars because they know people will speed. in Easter Europe they don't have 0.0 drink driving limits because they think it's impossible to drive on 0.5, it's because the danger is high that a person will continue drinking after that one or two glasses. again, we know that distractions are extremely dangerous, we have the proof for that, whether it's slightly more likely to cause injuries by radio or texting is completely irrelevant. that's a red hering! and maybe you should learn how to read between the lines.
When I got a car that lets me change the station on the steering wheel, I decided it was safe to drink and drive again.
Well, quite Like I said, texting seems incredibly dangerous because it takes your attention for several seconds at a time so let's say it's 100% loss of attention for, say, 10 seconds. Drunk driving reduces it by, say, 50%, but for an entire journey of maybe half an hour. Obviously it depends on traffic conditions as to how significant either of these things might be but I'd say those things are roughly equivalent in terms of danger to other road users, certainly for heavy traffic and roads alongside pavements with pedestrians. Of course, the other problem with alcohol is that people still THINK they're driving OK, (sometimes driving quicker than they would normally), whereas that's not going to be the case with people texting.
reminds me of MADD... women, always the meddlesome ninnies. trying to destroy man's attempts at having a good time...
currently we have laws that restrict phone use while driving. the people who violate these laws are not concerned whether they are driving safely. they feel entitled and immune to the consequences. i get maybe one cellphone call a day, and i make about the same number. once in a while, maybe once a week, i'm in my car when i get a call, and most of the time, i answer that call, but not if i'm on the freeway. if i need to pull over and talk on the phone for a couple of minutes, i can do that on surface streets. my guess is that a tiny percentage of phone use while driving is "essential". people who do "non-essential" phone use while driving aren't going to stop.
Usually because they fail to yield or stop and are the ones doing the primary impact. T-bone collisions, rear ends and such. One friend did, he got luck enough to get hit by another far more drunk driver (think beer cans falling out of the car) and probably escaped some injury because he didn't have time to get rigid for the impact. The other fell asleep on the way home and plowed into one of these: at 60 or so MPH in a mustang. It was a closed casket service. Fortunately no one else was hurt.
I think the one effective way to curb drinking and driving (and notice, I keep saying drinking and driving, not drunk driving, because you don't in fact have to be drunk to be booked for DUI) is to be forced to listen to and watch stories of the victims of drinking and driving. MADD puts on these panels that DUI offenders in most states have to attend as part of their curriculum. I think this is one of the few effective ways to get through to people who drink and drive, because at our very core, when we don't drink at least, we're all human, and understand human tragedy. the rest of it - all the punitive actions the court makes people do, including attending classes and therapy, jail, probation, random breath and urine tests, etc. just harden people against organizations like MADD, the cops, the state, etc. they see how many people profit off of their mistakes, they see how ineffective and punitive all these measures are and it just makes them cynical about the system.
It has a DWI theme. Oklahoma, beware. God is the co-pilot http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/justice/oklahoma-roberts-dui-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
As it should, the problem I'm talking about is enforcement of certain equally punishable offences over others. Society can vilify drunk drivers all it wants, but the roads will be safest when we enforce all forms of distracted driving to minimize their impact to statistical insignificance. Becausse in the end, you're just as dead/injured when t-boned by a drunk driver as when you're t-boned by a texting driver.
some people seem to think that just because a particular crime is easier to prove than some other crime, it should therefore be punished harsher than other crimes.
I saw something on Huff Post (I think) about the Midwest being the "binge drinking belt" of the US. certainly doesn't surprise. right up there with bible belt and divorce belt too.