• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Why?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.
sorry...eme said:
Just curious...do you think that was just punnishment???
Not at all. I think he didn't deserve that punishment. Without knowing the person, I'd imgaine just killing someone, without any intention what so ever, would be punishment enough. He didn't need to be sent to jail.

But I believe you missed the point of this discussion. The question was: why does a person who drives dangerously not suffer the same punishment as a person who drinks and drives? Exculding any type of wreck. Simply comparing punishment. A driver speeds through a red light compared to a driver who drank and was pulled over because of a missing tail light. Speed kills more people than alcohol, yet speeders aren't treated the same as those that have been drinking - unless there's a crash.
 


ezmarelda

Member
fagettaboutit said:
Not at all. I think he didn't deserve that punishment. Without knowing the person, I'd imgaine just killing someone, without any intention what so ever, would be punishment enough. He didn't need to be sent to jail.

But I believe you missed the point of this discussion. The question was: why does a person who drives dangerously not suffer the same punishment as a person who drinks and drives? Exculding any type of wreck. Simply comparing punishment. A driver speeds through a red light compared to a driver who drank and was pulled over because of a missing tail light. Speed kills more people than alcohol, yet speeders aren't treated the same as those that have been drinking - unless there's a crash.
I will admit I only skimmed this thread before posting and moving on to the more lengthy discussion....please see my postings there;)
 
Shay-Pari'e said:
How retarded are you? I never said getting behind the wheel is an accident. I stated that accidents do happen. Someone stopped to soon in traffic can cause a big accident, Are they at fault? Of Course they are!
First of all, you don't have to call me retarded. I was simply trying to understand what you were saying.

If someone causes a big accident for stopping too soon, they are NOT at fault. The driver that hit them is at fault. You are responsible for keeping a safe distance. If you hit someone from behind, YOU will be cited. That's just elementary stuff, hon.

Difference is, if you are not drunk, you don't go to jail. If you are drunk, you go to jail.
Yeah, but that doesn't address the original question.

I happen to like the DUI laws,...it keeps my family just a little safer.

There is no debating with you. I do NOT agree with you.

Plain English.[/B]
You're right, there is no debating you. DUI laws don't keep your family safer. If DUI laws were working so great, there wouldn't be a need or call for stricter DUI laws. But like I've said before, your family could be killed by a sober driver. It appears you haven't considered that option - or maybe you think that would be a better option.

Either way, you're only interested in punishing those who drink and drive and not those who simply drive dangerously.
 

Shay-Pari'e

Senior Member
fagettaboutit said:
First of all, you don't have to call me retarded. I was simply trying to understand what you were saying.

If someone causes a big accident for stopping too soon, they are NOT at fault. The driver that hit them is at fault. You are responsible for keeping a safe distance. If you hit someone from behind, YOU will be cited. That's just elementary stuff, hon.



Yeah, but that doesn't address the original question.



You're right, there is no debating you. DUI laws don't keep your family safer. If DUI laws were working so great, there wouldn't be a need or call for stricter DUI laws. But like I've said before, your family could be killed by a sober driver. It appears you haven't considered that option - or maybe you think that would be a better option.
Either way, you're only interested in punishing those who drink and drive and not those who simply drive dangerously.
I don't have to consider the option. Like Eme, I have my own stories. My step father was killed at an intersection a mile from home Fathers Day 1995. My youngest sister was on her way home from Easter dinner with our family, when some ass was driving un-safe and switching lanes on the freeway. She was pushed off the road, rolled, and landed in the medium. Her boyfriend was thrown through the sun roof. She saw him on the other side of the freeway. He was dead, but she was in shock. It was dark, she tried to drag him off the road,when they were both hit by a on-comming car. He boyfriend was thrown over 100 yards, and she mangled her legs. That was Easter of 1996. I buried my bio father on my birthday of 1996 also.

I don't have to consider the option, I have lived it.

I am done with this thread.

I have dealt with tragic losses due to car accidents.
 

weenor

Senior Member
fagettaboutit said:
Not at all. I think he didn't deserve that punishment. Without knowing the person, I'd imgaine just killing someone, without any intention what so ever, would be punishment enough. He didn't need to be sent to jail.

But I believe you missed the point of this discussion. The question was: why does a person who drives dangerously not suffer the same punishment as a person who drinks and drives? Exculding any type of wreck. Simply comparing punishment. A driver speeds through a red light compared to a driver who drank and was pulled over because of a missing tail light. Speed kills more people than alcohol, yet speeders aren't treated the same as those that have been drinking - unless there's a crash.
In general society, through its laws, draws a distinction between different levels of intent. That is the basis for determining what conduct is punishable as a crime and what conduct is best left to the civil system.
 

peanut44

Member
BigMistakeFl said:
That's the reach, actually. Link please, to back up your statement.

you don't think that someone who is actually falling asleep at the wheel is more dangerous than somebody who is .05%?
 

peanut44

Member
weenor said:
In general society, through its laws, draws a distinction between different levels of intent. That is the basis for determining what conduct is punishable as a crime and what conduct is best left to the civil system.

99.99999% of all accidents have no intent. Do you think a DUI driver PLANS on hurting someone? Could have been avoided? Sure! Should have known better? Sure! But that could be said about anybody who runs a stop sign, or crosses the center line.

Why does someone who has 2 drinks in their blood automatically become more dangerous than someone else who actually ran their car into something?
 

BigMistakeFl

Senior Member
BigMistakeFl

you don't think that someone who is actually falling asleep at the wheel is more dangerous than somebody who is .05%?
I never made either claim. I'm asking for backup to the claim. I have no idea which driver is more dangerous.
 

peanut44

Member
BigMistakeFl said:
I never made either claim. I'm asking for backup to the claim. I have no idea which driver is more dangerous.
Here's one for .05%
.05 NOTICEABLE RELAXATION. LESS ALERT. LESS SELF-FOCUSED. COORDINATION IMPAIRMENT BEGINS.
http://www.habitsmart.com/bal.html

Are you really unsure of the fact that someone who is actually ASLEEP is more dangerous than someone who is "noticeably relaxed" or are you just giving me a hard time for S&G?
 

BigMistakeFl

Senior Member
BigMistakeFl

"S&G"? Sorry, I'm in a Monday slump.

Thanks for the link about BAL. I'd like to see stats comparing fatigue to alcohol impairment. Yes, being flat out asleep is pretty dangerous (lol), I agree.
 

peanut44

Member
BigMistakeFl said:
"S&G"? Sorry, I'm in a Monday slump.

Thanks for the link about BAL. I'd like to see stats comparing fatigue to alcohol impairment. Yes, being flat out asleep is pretty dangerous (lol), I agree.
S&G+ sh!ts and giggles
 
BigMistakeFl said:
That's the reach, actually. Link please, to back up your statement.
Here's some proof for you.

Driver inattention is the leading factor in most crashes and near-crashes, according to a landmark research report released today by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI).

Nearly 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds before the event. Primary causes of driver inattention are distracting activities, such as cell phone use, and drowsiness.


Continue reading:
http://nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.416f74e8613992381601031046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a_viewID=detail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID=71052f9b8559a010VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard
In a test of reaction times, people who were tired because of disrupted sleep performed about as poorly as subjects who were legally drunk, the researchers report. The study is the first to show severe impairment in people who have only mild to moderate sleep disturbances.

Nelson B. Powell, DDS, MD, leader of the research team, said he hopes that the results will stimulate a discussion about the need for safety guidelines to cover sleepiness -- rules that might resemble those already in place for blood alcohol levels.


Continue reading:
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/1999/september29/sleep-929.html
When you are behind the wheel of a car, being sleepy is dangerous. Sleepiness slows reaction time, decreases awareness, and impairs judgment, just like drugs or alcohol. And, just like drugs and alcohol, sleepiness can contribute to a collision.

Most people know how dangerous drinking and driving is -- but they may not know that driving drowsy can be just as fatal as driving drunk.


You can even take a quiz to test your knowledge
http://www.aaafoundation.org/quizzes/index.cfm?button=drowsyquiz
Waking Up To Drowsy-Driving Danger
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/20/earlyshow/contributors/melindamurphy/main650271.shtml

If you need more "back up", I suggest you google "drowsy driving"

So again, a drowsy driver is just as capable of killing someone as a drunk driver. Yet there is no punishment for driving drowsy. A drowsy driver has to injure or kill someone before they receive the same punishment as a drunk driver who wasn't involved in an accident. 80 percent of all crashes involved some form of driver inattention - not alcohol. ;)
 

BigMistakeFl

Senior Member
BigMistakeFl

Actually, drowsy drivers and alcohol related drivers often overlap: (Borrowing from your source of the NHTSA)
"Although sleepiness and alcohol are distinct crash causes, the data also show some evidence of overlap. NHTSA found that drivers had consumed some alcohol in nearly 20 percent of all sleepiness-related, single-vehicle crashes (Wang, Knipling, Goodman, 1996). More than one in three New York State drivers surveyed in drowsy-driving crashes said they had drunk some alcohol (McCartt et al., 1996), and police-reported, fall-asleep crashes had a higher proportion of alcohol involvement than other types of crashes in that State. (New York GTSC Task Force, 1994; New York State Task Force, 1996).

Laboratory studies explain and predict these patterns. Many researchers have shown that sleepiness and alcohol interact, with sleep restriction exacerbating the sedating effects of alcohol, and the combination adversely affecting psychomotor skills to an extent greater than that of sleepiness or alcohol alone (Roehrs et al. 1994; Wilkinson, 1968; Huntley, Centybear, 1974; Peeke et al., 1980). Driving simulation tests specifically show this effect, even with modest reductions in sleep, low alcohol doses, and low blood ethanol concentrations. In a driving simulation study, alcohol levels below the legal driving limit produced a greater number of deviations from the road after 4 hours of sleep than after 8 hours of sleep (Roehrs et al., 1994) (see figure 4). "

So again, we could argue this until the cows come home. Fact is, both are dangerous. I still contend that you will never get lawmakers to lighten up the DUI laws, no matter how many stats we throw at them. You might, however, succeed in increasing penalties and possibly more useful would be more studies about drowsy drivers. Go for it.
 
BigMistakeFl said:
Actually, drowsy drivers and alcohol related drivers often overlap: (Borrowing from your source of the NHTSA)
"Although sleepiness and alcohol are distinct crash causes, the data also show some evidence of overlap. NHTSA found that drivers had consumed some alcohol in nearly 20 percent of all sleepiness-related, single-vehicle crashes (Wang, Knipling, Goodman, 1996). More than one in three New York State drivers surveyed in drowsy-driving crashes said they had drunk some alcohol (McCartt et al., 1996), and police-reported, fall-asleep crashes had a higher proportion of alcohol involvement than other types of crashes in that State. (New York GTSC Task Force, 1994; New York State Task Force, 1996).

Laboratory studies explain and predict these patterns. Many researchers have shown that sleepiness and alcohol interact, with sleep restriction exacerbating the sedating effects of alcohol, and the combination adversely affecting psychomotor skills to an extent greater than that of sleepiness or alcohol alone (Roehrs et al. 1994; Wilkinson, 1968; Huntley, Centybear, 1974; Peeke et al., 1980). Driving simulation tests specifically show this effect, even with modest reductions in sleep, low alcohol doses, and low blood ethanol concentrations. In a driving simulation study, alcohol levels below the legal driving limit produced a greater number of deviations from the road after 4 hours of sleep than after 8 hours of sleep (Roehrs et al., 1994) (see figure 4). "
That information isn't from the report I gave you. You're comparing one report with research from 10 years ago to research done within the past year. That's why it's called, Breakthrough Research on Real-World Driver Behavior Released.

NHTSA found that drivers had consumed some alcohol in nearly 20 percent of all sleepiness-related, single-vehicle crashes (Wang, Knipling, Goodman, 1996

20 percent consumed SOME alcohol (no mention of driver being drunk) and that still leaves 80 percent where there was NO alcohol. Which percentage is higher?

So again, we could argue this until the cows come home. Fact is, both are dangerous. I still contend that you will never get lawmakers to lighten up the DUI laws, no matter how many stats we throw at them. You might, however, succeed in increasing penalties and possibly more useful would be more studies about drowsy drivers. Go for it.
If you throw the actual FACTS - not the trumped up over-inflated MADD alcohol-related numbers - you'd be surprised at people's reaction towards the truth about alcohol-related issues.

Why should I go for it? I'm not asking for the arrest of any who has ONE drink, waits an hour, and drives home. Why shouldn't you want to see more penalities for dangerous drivers (like those who are drowsy)? I find it interesting that those who balk at the dangers of drinking and driving could care less about punishing any other danger - except alcohol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top