Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: supercat

"Which is more likely to cause an accident: (1) someone who drives a vehicle while eating a burrito, or (2) a small person who is basically alert who has recently consumed two beers?"

Two beers will not see you blow over the legal limit, not even at .08. Unless of course you are talking about a 70 pounder, in that case it would be an issue of underage drinking.

"The increase in accident risk caused by a 0.08 or 0.09BAC is statistically negligible compared with the many other factors which are routinely accepted."

So? It's .08 per lawmakers. If you do not like it then by all means lobby to see it changed.

I fyou want to defend drinking and driving do so openly. Cell phones burritos and sleepyness ( aside from PASSED OUT THAT IS) are entirely different subjects.

You are trying to say that because something else is bad then this bad thing should not be punished. Such merit you post with.....sheesh.

.08 IS a level of impairment. .08 is the LAW. I guess you are against the rule of law. I guess you do not respect it simply due to the fact you disagree.

Terrorists think they have a right to do the things they do and they do not respect the laws against it either. Nor do they respect the way in which they were formed.

Burglers do not respect the rule of law or the laws that prohibit what they do. I guess you agree with them also.

OH and Illegal aliens..same for them, Seems you agree with them too. They disagree BIG TIME with the law and how it was formed. They think it is wrong to apply the rule of law to them also.

See its easy to talk about other things.....

Take the high road and argue for me the MERITS of DRINKING and DRIVING and all that good that comes of it and put it up against the bad that is so OBVIOUS.

My bet is that you will not even TRY to argue the GOOD that comes from drinking and driving. But hey I could be surprised.

I am off to bed right now but I look forward to seeing what you write in response ....or what you don't.


142 posted on 11/10/2005 8:42:09 PM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies ]


To: BlueStateDepression
Take the high road and argue for me the MERITS of DRINKING and DRIVING and all that good that comes of it and put it up against the bad that is so OBVIOUS.

Suppose 15% of people have green eyes (or pick whatever color you like). An analysis of fatal accidents shows that 25% of them involve one person, 25% two people, 25% three people, and 25% four people. But over 32% of the accidents are "green-eye related". Would that constitute proof that we need to do something about this "green-eyed menace"? Why do we continue to allow green-eyed people on the road? What good are they anyway?

Even if alcohol had absolutely zero effect on traffic fatalities, the data would not be much different from what they are. What reason is there to believe that the differences cannot be explained by factors unrelated to drivers with low-but-illegal BAC levels such as either (1) a driver had a BAC of 0.15 or higher, which I would stipulate should be basis for prosecution, or (2) a fatality was caused by the alcohol even though the intoxicated person wasn't driving (e.g. a drunk stumbles into the street and gets hit by a motorist).

I'm not saying that there's anything particularly wonderful or noble about someone driving home after having a beer, any more than there's anything noble about driving home after having done something really great or really stupid (and thinking about it on the way). Indeed, a person who has had one or two large beers and is mindful of the need to drive carefully is apt to be a safer driver than a sober motorist whose mind is on other things. So why is the former worthy of more condemnation than the latter?

144 posted on 11/10/2005 9:17:50 PM PST by supercat (Don't fix blame--FIX THE PROBLEM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies ]

To: BlueStateDepression

".08 IS a level of impairment. .08 is the LAW. I guess you are against the rule of law. I guess you do not respect it simply due to the fact you disagree."

Abortion is the law. If you oppose abortion you must be against the rule of law. I guess you would not respect the law simply due to the fact you disagree.


167 posted on 11/11/2005 9:47:24 AM PST by CSM (When laws are written, they apply to ALL...Not just the yucky people you don't like. - HairOfTheDog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson