A sobering warning.

[TenPenny]

Okay, let's accept that the legal limit for alcohol is 0.08, and that some believe it should be zero, because that's safer.

Using that logic, should no one drive more that 10 km/h? After all, there is a legal speed limit, but the slower you drive, the better chance you have of not running over that kid.

 

[Unforgiven]

You're a slow learner. You should quit jumping and running. I systematically shot down all your arguments and you keeping moving on to something else, booze wasn't enough so you went to guns (my opinion on those is well documented in this forum too). But back to the topic. I'm more concerned with safety than legality- the two aren't the same - nowhere close- tubing in class 5 rapids is legal. I am as safe a driver as most people. I am quite confident I could drink 2 or 3 bottles of beer with a meal and drive home safely. I choose to drink coffee, so that while I am driving home and a child pops out of nowhere three feet in front of my bumper and I run over him and kill him (which I doubt I would ever get over) at least I wouldn't have the burden on my head of wondering if I hadn't had those beer would things have been different. I also wouldn't have the burden of convincing his family, his friends, the police, the judge, which I would no doubt would have to if my breath reeks of booze when the cop arrives on the scene. I just like to avoid situations that have a potential for grief. I don't personally give a rat's ass if you drink and drive, but if you ever harm one of my family or friends because of it you'll be brushing your teeth through your rectum. :lol:

You understand we're talking not jumping, not running. You are sitting and so am I.

You haven't shot down anything. You said that you want to make the world a big safe place by stopping people from having a drink with dinner. That you would change the law to prevent people from having that drink with dinner, apparently regardless of what it would do to the hospitality business even though it has no effect on drunks hitting people with their cars.

Drink all the coffee you want, more power to you. Just don't force your whacked out religion on me. I am doing just fine in handling my responsibilities. Perfect record, no kills, hits or near misses. Driving it potentially dangerous, just look at the statistics. While you say you avoid situation that have the potential for grief you again show your serious lack of forethought in saying first that for anyone one drink can be too many, based on your own experience I guess, and then that you feel you can drive safely after having three beer.

Seems to me that you don't know what the hell is what from one minute to the next. At least from what you post here anyway.

As for the threat, please. First keep the family off the highway in the middle of the night dressed in black. Second I extend to you the same offer I extend to all you Internet tough guys. I'm right here in downtown Toronto, feel free to come and take some discipline. :lol:

 

[JLM]

Okay, let's accept that the legal limit for alcohol is 0.08, and that some believe it should be zero, because that's safer.

Using that logic, should no one drive more that 10 km/h? After all, there is a legal speed limit, but the slower you drive, the better chance you have of not running over that kid.

Good thought but one slight flaw in your argument. Driving at a reasonable speed is necessary for many life functions, driving while drinking is not necessary to perform any life functions.

You understand we're talking not jumping, not running. You are sitting and so am I.

You haven't shot down anything. You said that you want to make the world a big safe place by stopping people from having a drink with dinner. That you would change the law to prevent people from having that drink with dinner, apparently regardless of what it would do to the hospitality business even though it has no effect on drunks hitting people with their cars.

Drink all the coffee you want, more power to you. Just don't force your whacked out religion on me. I am doing just fine in handling my responsibilities. Perfect record, no kills, hits or near misses. Driving it potentially dangerous, just look at the statistics. While you say you avoid situation that have the potential for grief you again show your serious lack of forethought in saying first that for anyone one drink can be too many, based on your own experience I guess, and then that you feel you can drive safely after having three beer.

Seems to me that you don't know what the hell is what from one minute to the next. At least from what you post here anyway.

As for the threat, please. First keep the family off the highway in the middle of the night dressed in black. Second I extend to you the same offer I extend to all you Internet tough guys. I'm right here in downtown Toronto, feel free to come and take some discipline. :lol:

Common sense is a virtue, not sure it's available in downtown Toronto. I'm sure I could drive safely after 3 beer.............999/1000 times.............but you know as well as I do there are exceptions to every rule. Anyway, I'm getting the picture, anyone's beliefs that differ from yours are "whacked out". :roll:

 

[TenPenny]

Good thought but one slight flaw in your argument. Driving at a reasonable speed is necessary for many life functions, driving while drinking is not necessary to perform any life functions.

In other words, you feel it's safe to drive at the legal speed limit, but don't want anyone else to be able to drive at or under the legal alcohol limit. Because, well, because.

 

[JLM]

In other words, you feel it's safe to drive at the legal speed limit, but don't want anyone else to be able to drive at or under the legal alcohol limit. Because, well, because.

Safe is a relative thing, nothing is 100% safe but the tolerance is more for necessary functions than unnecessary functions. To tell you the truth I'd be a lot happier driving my family down the highway, knowing no one else is drinking than I would be knowing others out there are drinking. How about you. Drinking while driving just doesn't accomplish anything constructive.

 

[eh1eh]

Safe is a relative thing, nothing is 100% safe but the tolerance is more for necessary functions than unnecessary functions. To tell you the truth I'd be a lot happier driving my family down the highway, knowing no one else is drinking than I would be knowing others out there are drinking. How about you. Drinking while driving just doesn't accomplish anything constructive.

So get the law changed to zero tolerance. Don't post it here, do it in the real world. It's a good idea.

 

[JLM]

So get the law changed to zero tolerance. Don't post it here, do it in the real world. It's a good idea.

I know that, but one cabinet minister here in B.C. has already told the whole wide world that a couple of drinks before driving is OK. That statement alone probably generated as much revenue for the province as anything else they've done- but I haven't heard the carnage figures resulting from it. :lol:

 

[Unforgiven]

Good thought but one slight flaw in your argument. Driving at a reasonable speed is necessary for many life functions, driving while drinking is not necessary to perform any life functions.

Going out for lobster is a life function. Going out to see the Jays play is a life function. Maybe not in Vernon where Open Mic at the Talkin' Donkey (any relation to you?) is the big event of the season. Life isn't all Timmies and leaning against the wall.

Common sense is a virtue,

How would you know?

not sure it's available in downtown Toronto.

Are you kidding? We had a common sense revolution here! What did you have in Vernon, Buck Wheat Days?

I'm sure I could drive safely after 3 beer.............999/1000 times.............but you know as well as I do there are exceptions to every rule. Anyway, I'm getting the picture, anyone's beliefs that differ from yours are "whacked out". :roll:

Your ideas are sure whacked out. First it's everyone can be unable to drive after one drink and then it's I can drive safely after 3 beer. You're losing it! I don't even think you can ride a bus sober at this point. Face it, your point is stupid, you don't know what you're on about and you keep jumping around trying to figure out a way to save face.

A real man would just admit they were in error and move on. You go ahead and keep at it though, I enjoy the show.

Oh I guess you won't be coming to Toronto anytime soon Iron Dukes?

 

[eh1eh]

I know that, but one cabinet minister here in B.C. has already told the whole wide world that a couple of drinks before driving is OK. That statement alone probably generated as much revenue for the province as anything else they've done- but I haven't heard the carnage figures resulting from it. :lol:

OK, so I'l just keep on drinking and driving cuz that guy told the world.

DUH, do you want impaired drivers or not. Why make an excuse about some worthless politician who told the 'whole wide world' his stupid worthless opinion. Man up and say what you mean. Unless you are going with what that guy told to the 'whole wide world'?

 

[lone wolf]

I wonder did he go have a few road brews to celebrate his mock victory then go driving - just 'cuz he's the greatest too?

 

[DaSleeper]

Yeah, but how could he have NOT felt them impact with his car? I have accidentally run over a raccoon and I could feel that, so how could someone(especially if they are sober) NOT feel it impacting with a person?

Hold Mah Beer and watch this;-)

YouTube - Redneck Quad Transporter

 

[JLM]

OK, so I'l just keep on drinking and driving cuz that guy told the world.

DUH, do you want impaired drivers or not. Why make an excuse about some worthless politician who told the 'whole wide world' his stupid worthless opinion. Man up and say what you mean. Unless you are going with what that guy told to the 'whole wide world'?

I think you're losing it man - you suggested I change it instead of talking about it, I was just giving you one instance why it may be hard for a common citizen to change it. So I don't see what your point is.

Going out for lobster is a life function. Going out to see the Jays play is a life function. Maybe not in Vernon where Open Mic at the Talkin' Donkey (any relation to you?) is the big event of the season. Life isn't all Timmies and leaning against the wall.
Lobster a life function?????????? Worst sh*t I ever ate. So, drink coffee with it or take a taxi. Same with the Blue Jays.



How would you know?
Just by keeping my eyes and ears open.



Are you kidding? We had a common sense revolution here! What did you have in Vernon, Buck Wheat Days?
The annual hay ride in the fall and the annual toboggan ride in the winter and the Easter Egg hunt in the spring.

Your ideas are sure whacked out. First it's everyone can be unable to drive after one drink and then it's I can drive safely after 3 beer. You're losing it! I don't even think you can ride a bus sober at this point. Face it, your point is stupid, you don't know what you're on about and you keep jumping around trying to figure out a way to save face.

Face about what? I posted a news item, to demonstrate what can happen when drinking and driving...........and you wanted to argue about it from the get go. Instead of saying you disagree and let it go at that all you've done so far is "name call" and "bad mouth". Kind of infantile don't you think?

A real man would just admit they were in error and move on. You go ahead and keep at it though, I enjoy the show.


Error about what? Posting a news item?

Oh I guess you won't be coming to Toronto anytime soon Iron Dukes?
Not within a thousand miles of it.

Have a nice day. :smile:

 

[Johnny Utah]

if that happened to my cousin id hunt the guy down and then when the cops got me youd have faith in the system

The system will never change until a politician loses a loved one to an drunk driver. At first I wanted to kill the guy but now the way I see it he has to live the rest of his life knowing he killed a four year old boy and I hope it eats at him until the day he dies and as for people's attitude towards drinking and driving if they choose to do it they need to realize there's serious consequences..

 

[taxslave]

Why do pubs have parking lots?

It's the law.

 

[Unforgiven]

Lobster a life function?????????? Worst sh*t I ever ate. So, drink coffee with it or take a taxi. Same with the Blue Jays.

Just by keeping my eyes and ears open.

The annual hay ride in the fall and the annual toboggan ride in the winter and the Easter Egg hunt in the spring.

Face about what? I posted a news item, to demonstrate what can happen when drinking and driving...........and you wanted to argue about it from the get go. Instead of saying you disagree and let it go at that all you've done so far is "name call" and "bad mouth". Kind of infantile don't you think?

Error about what? Posting a news item?

Not within a thousand miles of it.

Have a nice day. :smile:

If you need help quoting just ask.

You've been the one name calling and acting like an immature crank throughout the thread. The only point you have even come close to making is that you feel the government should nerf the world for every person there is. This goes directly against your stated position on guns.

Attempting to make some irresponsible criminal the norm for those who have a drink with a meal when enjoying an evening out is not just preposterous, it's a stupid concept that you can't even manage to back up with any reason or basis in logic. Talk about a straw man argument.

When presented with this hypocritical position of yours you get angry, defensive and frothing to the point of threatening violence that you obviously can't back up. Hence the Internet tough guy comment. What's more you now attempt to rewrite history in this thread yet and after all the infantile name calling and bad mouthing you've done, you attempt to say that I am the one who has been doing all this. I pity you that you are in this state.

However I understand that anyone can have a very bad day and so continue to extend you the courtesy of assisting you with your inability to quote messages properly.

 

[JLM]

If you need help quoting just ask.

You've been the one name calling and acting like an immature crank throughout the thread. The only point you have even come close to making is that you feel the government should nerf the world for every person there is. This goes directly against your stated position on guns.

.

Well, I just reread the posts back to the beginning and nothing that could even be remotely construed as rude on my part occurred before you tried to throw in the red herring about the guns and accused me of flip flopping. How my position on guns ( not making law abiding citizens register them, when the criminals won't anyway) has anything to do with drinking and driving beats me. I admit to being a little testy after being called a "flip flop". You're perfectly entitled to your opinion which I've never denigrated beyond possibly pointing out the flaws in it (which is what debate is all about) We just have different values- you value drinking beer with your lobster and then driving home and I value being able to drive the highway confident that no one is going to do me harm. On that note we should end this.

 

[DaSleeper]

 

[JLM]

It's the law.

Well that only makes sense - when a guy is too drunk to walk and phones for a ride, you couldn't expect him to walk (stagger) all the way out to the street to get picked up. :lol:

 

[Unforgiven]

Well, I just reread the posts back to the beginning and nothing that could even be remotely construed as rude on my part occurred before you tried to throw in the red herring about the guns and accused me of flip flopping. How my position on guns ( not making law abiding citizens register them, when the criminals won't anyway) has anything to do with drinking and driving beats me. I admit to being a little testy after being called a "flip flop". You're perfectly entitled to your opinion which I've never denigrated beyond possibly pointing out the flaws in it (which is what debate is all about) We just have different values- you value drinking beer with your lobster and then driving home and I value being able to drive the highway confident that no one is going to do me harm. On that note we should end this.

Well I've just been honest and only pointed out the flip flop you have done and the odd way you attempt to justify the abrupt change of course on these two subjects where they intersect. No red herring at all. I really don't think it's worth the effort to collect all the insulting and childish things you've said to me in this thread alone and post them all in one message for you. You seem to choose to read what you want and insist the rest doesn't exist even when you write it yourself.

You value putting your opinion over those of anyone else, putting your wants before those of others, regardless of how harmless anything that isn't your choice is, and attempting to denigrate someone should they disagree with what you tell them is right.

Your fear of some imaginary threat of people breaking into your home to harm you, people driving drunk out of their minds on one drink and people on the highway trying to kill you, not to mention those you talk to on the Internet doing harm or killing your family is perhaps a significant symptom of some deeper psychosis you should get examined by a professional.

While prudent to take care for those who aren't it's just nuts to think that everyone is out to get you JLM.
Talk to your doctor and ask if there is a referral that can be made. It's in your best interest to face up to things rather than suffer the anger and paranoia in denial.

Another thing to consider.


EFFECT OF AGE AND VISUAL IMPAIRMENT ON DRIVING AND VISION PERFORMANCE
Accession Number:
00668962

The effects of age and visual impairment on driving and visual performance were investigated for a sample of 46 subjects including 10 young visually normal subjects, 18 elderly visually normal subjects, and 18 elderly subjects with early cataracts. Driving performance was assessed on a closed-road circuit for a series of driving tasks including peripheral awareness, maneuvering, reversing, reaction times, speed estimation, road position, and time to complete the course. Visual performance was assessed using disability glare tests, Pelli-Robson letter contrast sensitivity (CS), a measure of the useful field of view (UFOV), and simple and forced-choice reaction times. The results showed that group (young normals, elderly subjects with normal vision or cataracts) had a significant effect (p < 0.05) on driving and vision. The cataract subjects had poorer driving performance (p < 0.05) than either the elderly or young normal subjects, and the elderly subjects had poorer driving performance (p < 0.05) than the young. Similarly, the visual performance of the elderly subjects (with or without cataracts) was significantly worse (p < 0.05) than that of the young subjects. The elderly subjects had higher disability glare, poorer letter CS, and reduced ability on the UFOV task. These findings indicate that elderly subjects have poorer driving performance than young subjects and those with cataracts have still more difficulties, even though the cataract subjects had visual acuity greater than or equal to 6/12 and were therefore eligible to drive. These changes were reflected by reduced visual performance.

 

[JLM]

Your fear of some imaginary threat of people breaking into your home to harm you, .

You are in sad shape, go find yourself a shrink, boy. I'm sure there's a couple in T.O.