81–90 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's clear that sobriety checkpoints aren't killing people left and right (that's preposterous). But it's not clear (edit: to me) if they actually save any lives for the effort.
yes, it's clear that they do save lives. maybe you should say "i'm not certain" instead of "it's not clear". and also maybe grow up some common sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, it's clear that they do save lives. maybe you should say "i'm not certain" instead of "it's not clear". and also maybe grow up some common sense.
What makes you say that it is clear? Could you link the study that you have in mind?
Why do you feel a study is needed in order to form an opinion on this? What logical arguments would you make against sobriety checkpoints?
In any case, turns out that at least one study has been performed. This was just the first google search hit. There's probably more out there.
[1] http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/check...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preventing DUI is a difficult problem. A much easier problem would be to prevent speeding. Put a GPS in every car that prevents the car from driving faster than the speed limit. All the technology exists, and this would doubtlessly save lives, but somehow I doubt anybody would pass the required laws.
I always wonder why we make cars that can go so fast. Even my car with a 1.4L engine making 100 HP can easily do 100mph, even though there's almost no place in the US where that's legal, and no place in my state where it's legal. The fastest speed limit in my state is 70mph. Why not speed-limit cars to 70mph by default, with an option to disable this limiter in a controlled fashion if the person wants to go out on a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's clear that sobriety checkpoints aren't killing people left and right (that's preposterous). But it's not clear (edit: to me) if they actually save any lives for the effort.
yes, it's clear that they do save lives. maybe you should say "i'm not certain" instead of "it's not clear". and also maybe grow up some common sense.
BTW my "common sense" says that sobriety checkpoints DO reduce drunk driving and fatal accidents. I'm not any kind of DUI checkpoint denier.
When I think of all the money spent in the name of improving and enriching the lives of human beings, it troubles me that we don't have a reliable solution for ending DUI. I know many companies fund research to end cancer or improve the quality of life for those with various diseases. While this research may help save or improve lives, it's motivated in part by a potential return on investment. Why can't we do someth…
DUI is a problem, and any human loss is painful, especially when avoidable. All that said, I feel like DUI is an overblown problem, in a way. 8 people dead per 1 million estimates incidents of DUI with a max. toll of 10k lives is not insignificant, and human loss is always bad. However, I disagree with your thesis. Curing cancer, raising the standard of living for the poor, and the death toll to obesity are all much…
Drinking and alcohol, and their impacts on our society.. and family.. and work, are not overblown. It's completely underestimated. Those who are dealing with the direct impacts of addiction and abuse in their families feel like they're in a bubble, and yet it's absolutely everywhere.
Everyone knows an alcoholic, and drinking&driving&death is only a very small data point in a massive societal issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you say that it is clear? Could you link the study that you have in mind?
> Could you link the study that you have in mind? Why do you feel a study is needed in order to form an opinion on this? What logical arguments would you make against sobriety checkpoints? In any case, turns out that at least one study has been performed. This was just the first google search hit. There's probably more out there. [1] http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/check... [2] http://www.wrap.…
http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/01/06/41411/california-drunk-d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preventing DUI is a difficult problem. A much easier problem would be to prevent speeding. Put a GPS in every car that prevents the car from driving faster than the speed limit. All the technology exists, and this would doubtlessly save lives, but somehow I doubt anybody would pass the required laws.
I always wonder why we make cars that can go so fast. Even my car with a 1.4L engine making 100 HP can easily do 100mph, even though there's almost no place in the US where that's legal, and no place in my state where it's legal. The fastest speed limit in my state is 70mph. Why not speed-limit cars to 70mph by default, with an option to disable this limiter in a controlled fashion if the person wants to go out on a…
If you are actually questioning why car engines have enough power to do that in the first place: An engine capable of hauling a heavy load uphill at the speed limit is capable of exceeding the speed limit on a flat surface. Ditto for an engine capable of accelerating quickly to perform a merge in a short space.
If you are asking why cars don't come with interlocks preventing those kind of speeds: Because they're not required, and they're not a marketable feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Make it easier for people to get around without driving, and there will be less drunk driving. So... add more car services? What !? Grade-separated rapid transit (ideally with platform screen doors), aggressive congestion charging, parking maximums, and general Copenhagenization - these are actual solutions, not more cars.
Platform screen doors are silly, faulty, expensive and pointless. I mean, the rest of your comment stands - I don't know of anybody who got hurt on my street, but that's probably because my street is only open for cars between 8 and 11 (AM, for those of you stuck with 12h clock). But platform screen doors, nope.
I feel like they would be reduce incidents of people/things falling into the tracks as well as help with queues in front of the doors (i.e., people know where to queue, as opposed to just following the train until it stops).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, but there seems to be an awful lot of rationalization taking place in this and your previous comment. As a person who drinks socially and is well-aware of my limits, I've rarely moved past a slight buzz. So, when I see a person state that they've repeatedly been drunk to the point of losing consciousness, I think, "now, why would a person do that?" I would have to think that there is at least some impai…
It's quite a bit easier to drink to that point with some drinks (higher proof) and in some contexts than others (shots vs sipping, peer pressure, distractions). I've never passed out drinking, but I've certainly wound up drunker than I expected on occasion. For someone substantially lighter than I, it could probably sneak up even easier. That said, if someone does so regularly there is probably something else going o…
Well, that's the thing: the grandparent is judging people who drive drunk repeatedly, while he himself repeatedly drinks to the point of losing consciousness. I just don't see the difference. Why is one "sneaking up on you" any better than the other? Why does one demonstrate better judgment when inebriated than the other?
>That said, if someone does so regularly there is probably something else going on.
Well, that would be my take. Or at least that perhaps that person isn't in the position they think to cast judgment on others who make poor choices when inebriated.
I don't know if there's anyone alive who drinks even occasionally and hasn't gone further than they expected. But, it's generally a good distance between "drunker than I thought" and "I almost went into a coma". And, if it happens once or twice, then OK, but repeatedly? Seems like you'd be aware of the dangers you mentioned at some point, which ironically was the grandparent's judgment about repeat drunk drivers.
And that's the irony that was just a bit too much. It's weird, because there doesn't seem to be contrition or anything. Just, "yeah, I'm known to repeatedly drink myself unconscious, but look at the choices those guys make when drunk".