Alcohol campaign

[Lazeum]

It's kind of hardcore but the message is strong...

It has been shared on local board, so I forward here too.

 

 

TAC Campaign

Drive safe!

I don't think it is new from this year... hopefully not a repost

Edited December 10, 2010 by Lazeum

[JMortensen]

Thanks Dad.

 

Let's all party like it's 1919 (that's a US prohibition joke).

[260DET]

If you don't drink or speed in Australia then you are a good safe driver PS improved vehicle safety standards have nothing to do with a reducing road toll PPS When cars crash in ads why are they always old shitters PPS Thats an Australian ad campaign Going to stop now, have run out of appropriate smilies

Edited December 9, 2010 by 260DET

[Lazeum]

Thanks Dad.

Let's all party like it's 1919 (that's a US prohibition joke).

 

Going to stop now, have run out of appropriate smilies

 

 

I did not expect such answers!

I'm the first one to believe those kind of movies could be odd but I think this one was worth sharing. I guess I'm becoming older than I thought (30 ...so old )

Edited December 10, 2010 by Lazeum

[Chaparral2f]

I know I'm a grouchy old fart, but I can't seem to think of any "cute" remarks to make. But most of you are pretty young and I guess you don't have very many friends in cemeteries.....yet.

Most drivers are morons, and if they want to compound their stupidity by drinking, I think jail time is only fair to us that have to be out there on the roads with them. This may seem a little harsh, but you get that way after prying a friend and his bike from under a pickup driven by an alcholic redneck a*****e who doesn't know where he is. (End rant)

[Tony D]

Graduating Class of 134 souls. By the end of graduation summer there was 119...I thought of it as 'natural selection' at the time. Even the two guys offed when the driver survived. He had to live with something he never contemplated. I contemplated it, so either I'm overthinking as a teenager, or I've always been an hardcore arsehole on some subjects.

 

Probably both.

 

I'm still here, so I must have done something right, and those who aren't didn't.

 

 

This of course exempts Duane (Spinal Meningitis at age 19) and Carmen (Cancer at 18) from the above list of Darwin's Deciples. (three of whom, in a dense fog, decided that the centerline of M55 was the warmest place around to take a nap. The 18 Wheeler Gravel Truck Driver that went 'thump-thump-thump' over the black articles in the middle of the road at 5AM probably still has guilt about that to this day... Fog as in atmospheric haze, not the state of mind they were in when they made that decision which can also be described as 'in a dense fog'...)

Edited December 10, 2010 by Tony D

[JMortensen]

Drinking and driving laws are a sham. I have had several friends killed in DUI accidents by drunk drivers, and I've also been the passenger in a car that was driving 38 in a 35 at 2:15 in the morning and watched someone get popped for a DUI not because they were swerving all over the road, but because she was driving near a bar at 2:15 AM. I think that there are a lot more of the latter than the former. In fact, just did some checking. In 2007 there were less than 13,000 deaths, and less than 3,000 of those were "innocent bystanders." The other 10,000 were either the drunk driver or the passenger of the drunk driver. So they have us all so paralyzed with fear that some drunk is going to kill us on the road that we'll do anything to stop it, and what we're doing is extorting money from otherwise law abiding citizens who may not be doing anything wrong at all. I didn't take the time to add the numbers up, but I think it's a fair assumption after scanning the map that the average number of arrests per state is probably in the 15,000 to 20,000 range. Let's take the low estimate. That is 750,000 people being arrested to save the innocent 3000. And again, do you think the cops catch 1/2 of the people who are within the technical confines of the law, drunk? 1/3? 1/4? 1/10? Probably not.

 

I agree that people should be smart enough not to drive when they are intoxicated and held accountable when they don't do so. Some people can drive just fine at .08, some people are dangerous at .03. The laws should be such that people who cannot control their vehicle get punished, whether it be due to cold medicine, a breakup, death of a family member, too tired to drive, cell phone, whatever. All the cop cars have dash cams in them now, so there is no reason to rely on BAC for conviction of DUI. They keep lowering the BAC requirement, but I think that's because it pays the government to do so and people are scared enough of drunk drivers to think that these laws are a service to them. It's the cell phone thing all over again. The problem is not the cell phone. The problem is the person not making a good decision about when to use it. Pretty soon there will be a law that you can't eat and drive, or that you can't have car stereos, or that you can't talk to passengers. It's arbitrary and ridiculous and based on fear. When you look at the numbers, they really don't justify what is done in the name of safety.

 

http://www.getmadd.com/

http://www.1800duilaws.com/dui-info/dui-arrest-by-state.asp

[cygnusx1]

It's a little tough to catch reaction time on a cop cam especially when the impaired driver happens to know how to stay within the lines.

[JMortensen]

I wasn't aware there was a spec for reaction time in New York. How do they test that?

[stravi757]

Drinking and driving laws are a sham. I have had several friends killed in DUI accidents by drunk drivers, and I've also been the passenger in a car that was driving 38 in a 35 at 2:15 in the morning and watched someone get popped for a DUI not because they were swerving all over the road, but because she was driving near a bar at 2:15 AM. I think that there are a lot more of the latter than the former. In fact, just did some checking. In 2007 there were less than 13,000 deaths, and less than 3,000 of those were "innocent bystanders." The other 10,000 were either the drunk driver or the passenger of the drunk driver. So they have us all so paralyzed with fear that some drunk is going to kill us on the road that we'll do anything to stop it, and what we're doing is extorting money from otherwise law abiding citizens who may not be doing anything wrong at all. I didn't take the time to add the numbers up, but I think it's a fair assumption after scanning the map that the average number of arrests per state is probably in the 15,000 to 20,000 range. Let's take the low estimate. That is 750,000 people being arrested to save the innocent 3000. And again, do you think the cops catch 1/2 of the people who are within the technical confines of the law, drunk? 1/3? 1/4? 1/10? Probably not.

 

I agree that people should be smart enough not to drive when they are intoxicated and held accountable when they don't do so. Some people can drive just fine at .08, some people are dangerous at .03. The laws should be such that people who cannot control their vehicle get punished, whether it be due to cold medicine, a breakup, death of a family member, too tired to drive, cell phone, whatever. All the cop cars have dash cams in them now, so there is no reason to rely on BAC for conviction of DUI. They keep lowering the BAC requirement, but I think that's because it pays the government to do so and people are scared enough of drunk drivers to think that these laws are a service to them. It's the cell phone thing all over again. The problem is not the cell phone. The problem is the person not making a good decision about when to use it. Pretty soon there will be a law that you can't eat and drive, or that you can't have car stereos, or that you can't talk to passengers. It's arbitrary and ridiculous and based on fear. When you look at the numbers, they really don't justify what is done in the name of safety.

 

http://www.getmadd.com/

http://www.1800duilaws.com/dui-info/dui-arrest-by-state.asp

 

I agree. So many people drink and drive its ridiculous. But It depends on who is driving the car like you said. I think the issue is way over blown. With how many innocents die a year like you said, Im willing to take my risk of driving on the road. I have never almost been creamed by a drunk driver before, but I have been almost killed by many sober drivers.... There are some people that I know that I would trust more driving a little drunk then other people I know driving completely sober.

[cygnusx1]

I wasn't aware there was a spec for reaction time in New York. How do they test that?

 

I don't think they do. It's usually the accident investigators that determine the reaction time wasn't up to par.  Like when I discovered skid marks in front of the tires of a car that just bounced backwards, head on, off the wall in front of my house.  He applied the brakes after he hit the wall. 

 

 

 

My life has been threatened more by, texting drivers, than anything else.  

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2010 by cygnusx1

[Tony D]

Curiously there is zero tolerance in GERMANY and their drunk driving rate of deaths is far lower than ours. Same in Japan where business drinking to the point of vomiting in the gutter is accepted.

 

Curously Americans have an uncanny knack to kill one another when drinking. Personally I'd execute them at the roadside and send a bill to the next of kin. I've seen all the arguments before "Oh I'm just fine." (CRASH!)

 

Be a man, have a beer, take a cab. How hard is that? I don't get it, I doubt I ever will. Why would anybody take an imparing compound and then operate machinery, drive a car... Why risk it? Off youself, fine---but you could kill other people. That someone callously disregards it out of some misguided machismo has never made any sense to me.

 

Has nothing to do with the cops, the laws, or MADD. It has everything to do with personal responsibility.

 

If drunk idiots didn't drive after drinking, there wouldn't be a law forbidding it.

 

Think about it for a second. Really think about it.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Tony D

[getoffmyinternet]

"alcholic redneck a*****e" FTL

 

Drinking and driving laws are a sham. I have had several friends killed in DUI accidents by drunk drivers, and I've also been the passenger in a car that was driving 38 in a 35 at 2:15 in the morning and watched someone get popped for a DUI not because they were swerving all over the road, but because she was driving near a bar at 2:15 AM.

 

I tend to agree. I've known plenty of people to get pointless tickets like that. Just recently a bunch of my buddies all got tickets for open beers because they were standing outside a starbucks near a van in which there were open beers. They didn't have anything to do with the van, didn't know the owner of the van, weren't anywhere near the owner of the van, were completely sober, the only catch seemed to be that the cop had yet to meet his quota for the day.

 

\

In fact, just did some checking. In 2007 there were less than 13,000 deaths, and less than 3,000 of those were "innocent bystanders." The other 10,000 were either the drunk driver or the passenger of the drunk driver. So they have us all so paralyzed with fear that some drunk is going to kill us on the road that we'll do anything to stop it, and what we're doing is extorting money from otherwise law abiding citizens who may not be doing anything wrong at all. I didn't take the time to add the numbers up, but I think it's a fair assumption after scanning the map that the average number of arrests per state is probably in the 15,000 to 20,000 range. Let's take the low estimate. That is 750,000 people being arrested to save the innocent 3000.

 

My problem with this statistic is that it's just that. Okay the first 10,000 arguably could have had it coming to them, but as for the other 3000 they did nothing wrong and they still got shafted by reality. Yeah 3,000 isn't a very high statistic when compared to 300,000,000, but consider this: the 9/11 innocent death toll was 2,977. How much of an uproar that caused and how much a single event changed the country, and we lose more than that each year to our own kind yet we don't call drunk driving a terrorist act. Just some perspective.

 

Has nothing to do with the cops, the laws, or MADD. It has everything to do with personal responsibility.

 

If drunk idiots didn't drive after drinking, there wouldn't be a law forbidding it.

 

The law comes into play because obviously personal responsibility isn't enough these days. Whether it's a decent person completely dumping every last bit of their common sense and foresight the second they take that first shot, or someone with tough guy syndrome that thinks, and must prove, that he can outsmart any chemical inhibitor he floods his brain with -- I don't get it either. All I know is I almost get assassinated by one of them often enough on my way to work that it seems almost inevitable. But talk about a catch 22, the very thing that makes you unsafe to drive is the thing that keeps you from realizing it.

 

Failing enforcement of the drinking and driving laws are the real problem here. That is, it's the only factor we can really control. We can't seem to fix the perpetrators -- and I suspect that Richard might be partially correct about the vehicle safety standards coming into play. The death toll may have cut in half over the course of 20 years, but it could easily be a post hoc that this company is using to pat their own backs.

 

It's certainly not that the laws aren't a good idea or just pointless, it's that they are apparently ineffective. This doesn't mean we should do away with them completely (assuredly that would be a disaster); we need to retool them to start catching more of the right people and less of the innocent! If putting a breathalyzer in every car in america will save 3,000 innocent people each year and save taxpayer dollars on frivolous law enforcement (as well as citizens the frivolous tickets), then we should put it on the ballot. Hell, maybe the bac should be lowered if everyone agrees that .08 doesn't cut it for at least the 75 percentile human because like Jon pointed out not everyone reacts the same way. I don't know what .08 feels like though, and I tend to believe that 99% of the accidents are caused by people well over the limit, while the other people are just flirting with DWI v. DUI. It's also silly that someone can get a DUI for being .01 simply because the cop had the gut feeling that he could pull the person over for something. And for a truck driver, the limit here is .04 -- I'm not sure if that means big rigs require twice the mental capacity to drive or if they are just capable of twice the damage and therefore we have to be twice as careful...

[JMortensen]

Let me try another tack: Speed was a factor in 30% of all fatalities on the road in 1998, contributing to 12,400 deaths. So surely those who would argue for shooting people by the side of the road or breathalyzers in every car would be equally supportive of the idea of a car with a governor in it so that it could not exceed the speed limit on any given road. Right? Save lives at any cost. Right???

 

http://www.smartmoto...al-crashes.html

Edited December 11, 2010 by JMortensen

[Chaparral2f]

Let me try another tack: Speed was a factor in 30% of all fatalities on the road in 1998, contributing to 12,400 deaths. So surely those who would argue for shooting people by the side of the road or breathalyzers in every car would be equally supportive of the idea of a car with a governor in it so that it could not exceed the speed limit on any given road. Right? Save lives at any cost. Right???

 

http://www.smartmoto...al-crashes.html

[/quotW\

So we shouldn't mind if we loose a friend or family member as long as we don't make any laws to stop the drunks from exercising their god given right to get s**faced and aim a 3000 pound missile down the public roads.

 

I have to agree with Tony D. Just shoot them and toss the bodies in the ditch.

[BLOZ UP]

Let me try another tack: Speed was a factor in 30% of all fatalities on the road in 1998, contributing to 12,400 deaths. So surely those who would argue for shooting people by the side of the road or breathalyzers in every car would be equally supportive of the idea of a car with a governor in it so that it could not exceed the speed limit on any given road. Right? Save lives at any cost. Right???

 

http://www.smartmoto...al-crashes.html

 

Negative, speed isn't what kills, it's the inability to stop in time.

[JMortensen]

So we shouldn't mind if we loose a friend or family member as long as we don't make any laws to stop the drunks from exercising their god given right to get s**faced and aim a 3000 pound missile down the public roads.

I said nothing even remotely similar to this. Did you actually read what I wrote, or did you just shut off when I criticized DUI laws.

 

I have to agree with Tony D. Just shoot them and toss the bodies in the ditch.

Likewise for speeding, then. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite. If the goal is to save lives that are taken by bad decision making, then speeders should be shot and tossed in the ditch with the drunks.

[260DET]

We get that 'speed is a factor' crap, as far as I can tell speed is a grossly exaggerated factor most times. Obviously if you drive at a suicidal speed then it is a factor but very few people drive like that, most people make a mistake by misjudging road conditions, losing concentration or similar when speed is alleged to have been a factor. But of course speed can be measured and the excess can be converted into dollars so............

[Tony D]

Let me try another tack: Speed was a factor in 30% of all fatalities on the road in 1998, contributing to 12,400 deaths. So surely those who would argue for shooting people by the side of the road or breathalyzers in every car would be equally supportive of the idea of a car with a governor in it so that it could not exceed the speed limit on any given road. Right? Save lives at any cost. Right???

 

http://www.smartmoto...al-crashes.html

 

It's also been shown that the SLOWEST 15% of the drivers cause the MAJORITY of the accidents out there. So 'speed' can be fast or slow---what is your point?

 

Sure, shoot them at the roadside as well. In a couple of months you will have nice clear driving roadways with people who are polite AND RESPONSIBLE.

 

Laws are written because people are NOT RESPONSIBLE.

 

Don't complain about the laws, complain about the ARSEHOLES that precipitated the encroachment of freedoms on everyone else. I offer a cure for the ROOT CAUSE: THE INDIVIDUAL TRANSGRESSING. I've never been for group punishment.

 

I offer a solution to that root cause of irresponsible individuals: Crash the Car, be found with alcohol on the breath: BANG! Impound the car, sell it at auction the proceeds to go towards REAL driver's education. My stance on this is well known. People who drink and drive are acting irresponsibly. Everyone thinks they can handle it. Why take that risk?

 

I'm sure we're all for commercial airline pilots with no alcohol limitations.

Guys in the Nike Missle Siloes.

City Bus Drivers...

 

Hey, do what you want on the road, you can handle it. You're a man! HEEE MAN! Let me show you how much I can drink and still stand upright! AND DRIVE!

 

I never said 'safety at all costs' and it goes counter to everything I have said in the past: I want to be able to drive my 66 Beetle with no air bags, no passive restraints, no 5mph bumpers---BUT IT CAN'T because of groupthink nannystate legislation.

 

I don't propose legislation, I propose EXTERMINATION. Expermination of those irresponsible individuals who weave, cross the centerline, and when stopped smell like a brewery.

 

Texting? Maybe mobile rape squads by trained dogs or something like they did in South America, unless they off someone then BANG!

 

I got no issue with eliminating people who are so stupid they cause another's death due to their irresponsibility.

 

It will make other THINK LONG AND HARD about what they are doing, and if the consequences to THEM equal that to the innocent bystanders they can kill...maybe that is better for everyone involved.

 

I loose no sleep over a drunk who kills himself. It's a tragedy they take others with them, though. I would gladly facilitate their suicide solution. Wine is fine, but whiskey's quicker!

Edited December 12, 2010 by Tony D

[Tony D]

It becomes obvious to me some people harbor some resentment at being 'caught' ... or their friends being 'caught' and can't understand the root cause behind it.

 

In Germany, you have you car keys on you and you're intoxicated...you're BUSTED!

 

They don't have the problems we do.

 

And they drive a heluva lot faster than we do as well.

 

Perhaps it has to do with competence and society that pressures RESPONSIBILITY.

 

This is opposite of the culture in the USA, and that's why we got the laws we do...