Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Jinn · 08-02-2005, 11:57 AM

I initially wrote a very long reply to this thread, but it was far too long and inflammatory; so I'm going to try to be concise.

There are legitimate reasons for driving under the influence; times when lives could be saved, wrongs could be righted, etc.. and there is not time to "sober up." I realize that the ratio of good reasons to bad reasons is nearly 0, but condemning it completely is unwillingness to accept that there are always exceptions to a rule. I don't desire to ruffle feathers with this argument, just point out that anyone saying that "driving drunk is the worst thing evar!!!" might not have considered the possibility that they could be drunk, yet possess knowledge or resources that could keep many other people from dying. In this situation, I truly wonder how many condemning the behavior would become a hypocrite, and themselves drive drunk.

Alcohol does not (in any way-shape-or-form) effect every person identically. A person over the age of 80 (on average) has the same reaction time (on average) as a DWAI driver. I've tested my own person reaction time, and it is nearly 1/3 of the "average" alert driver. By this logic, I could drink approx. 4 beers (48 ounces at 5.0%) before my reaction time was lowered to the 1-2s range cited in my drivers training manual for the average driver. The chart was an attempt to dissaude would-be drunk drivers by showing the difference between an average driver and an average drunk driver. However, four beers would put me beyond the legal limit, yet I would still perform technical maneuvers with the same speed and efficiency as a "normal" driver if I was not otherwise affected (sleep deprivation, other drugs).

I do respect the law, and I do believe in enforcing the "Spirit" of the law. I think that an obviously intoxicated driver UNDER .008 should be arrested, but a coherent and safe driver above the limit should not necessarily. There are always exceptions to the rule. However, do not take this to mean that the current system should be abolished. I do not wish there to be any more drunk drivers, and I do not think that these reasons could justify removing the current laws. They're imperfect, but laws are put in place to protect the MAJORITY. There are certainly people whom the .08 rule does not apply to, but I unfortunately don't believe there is a more effective way to judge reaction time/driving ability than a current Intoxilyser/Breathalyzer.

To the OP: the above posters got it -- it sucks, the man isnt keeping you down, you were the victim of an unfortunate circumstance but it's already happened and there's nothing you can do about it--- EXCEPT LEARN FROM IT. Take whatever lesson you may.

08-02-2005, 11:57 AM	#16 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I initially wrote a very long reply to this thread, but it was far too long and inflammatory; so I'm going to try to be concise. There are legitimate reasons for driving under the influence; times when lives could be saved, wrongs could be righted, etc.. and there is not time to "sober up." I realize that the ratio of good reasons to bad reasons is nearly 0, but condemning it completely is unwillingness to accept that there are always exceptions to a rule. I don't desire to ruffle feathers with this argument, just point out that anyone saying that "driving drunk is the worst thing evar!!!" might not have considered the possibility that they could be drunk, yet possess knowledge or resources that could keep many other people from dying. In this situation, I truly wonder how many condemning the behavior would become a hypocrite, and themselves drive drunk. Alcohol does not (in any way-shape-or-form) effect every person identically. A person over the age of 80 (on average) has the same reaction time (on average) as a DWAI driver. I've tested my own person reaction time, and it is nearly 1/3 of the "average" alert driver. By this logic, I could drink approx. 4 beers (48 ounces at 5.0%) before my reaction time was lowered to the 1-2s range cited in my drivers training manual for the average driver. The chart was an attempt to dissaude would-be drunk drivers by showing the difference between an average driver and an average drunk driver. However, four beers would put me beyond the legal limit, yet I would still perform technical maneuvers with the same speed and efficiency as a "normal" driver if I was not otherwise affected (sleep deprivation, other drugs). I do respect the law, and I do believe in enforcing the "Spirit" of the law. I think that an obviously intoxicated driver UNDER .008 should be arrested, but a coherent and safe driver above the limit should not necessarily. There are always exceptions to the rule. However, do not take this to mean that the current system should be abolished. I do not wish there to be any more drunk drivers, and I do not think that these reasons could justify removing the current laws. They're imperfect, but laws are put in place to protect the MAJORITY. There are certainly people whom the .08 rule does not apply to, but I unfortunately don't believe there is a more effective way to judge reaction time/driving ability than a current Intoxilyser/Breathalyzer. To the OP: the above posters got it -- it sucks, the man isnt keeping you down, you were the victim of an unfortunate circumstance but it's already happened and there's nothing you can do about it--- EXCEPT LEARN FROM IT. Take whatever lesson you may. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel