Under the affluence of incahol

[ThaFlash]

It's not logic. The obeyed the laws but both miscalculated on this occasion and it cost them.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

But that is about having a clearly defined line in the sand.

To suggest having a speed allowance of 5-10 km/h over the limit is like saying the BAC limit is 0.05 but you will not get fined or lose your license at 0.07 because it is just a couple over. The end result is people will start treating 0.07 as the limit, just like they used to treat 70 km/h as the true limit in a 60 km/h zone.

People will not look at the figure outlined in the law, they look at what they can get away with.

I'm not suggesting making the penalties less harsh, just pointing out an example of similarity that the highest trauma caused by drink drivers are not the ones that misjudged themselves and accidentally drove at .06, but the ones that are driving at 2x,3x or 4x the limit. And in their case no change to the limit for the rest of society will change their attitude.

Originally Posted by TS50

Again its about making a rule for the lowest common denominator, and again those who are the problem continually flout that rule, while the rest of us get penalised

Exactly.

[Fireblade]

Originally Posted by TS50

By using that logic, you would never leave the house
If you knew by leaving the house you were 25% more likely of picking up someone elses germs
would you leave?
etc etc
Every part of life is a risk, and yes we all determine how we evaluate and take those risks, but it dosnt mean we value our life any less than you

But thats an associated risk to ourselves, we're not talking about ourselves but the risk to other road users, we don't have the right to put other peoples lives at risk, that is not our choice. Having known somebody who was pretty much co-erced (spelling?) in to a drunk drivers car (her best friends) by the drunk driver (her best friend)( this was caught on video from a servo and used as evidence in court) or be left 30 odd km from home drunk and then having to walk, out in the country so were talking town to town, then crashing into a tree and killing the passenger who was co-erced into the car. Now the passenger was made to feel she had no choice but to get in, as I said video evidence was used in court to prosecute the driver, she lost her life, the driver has then been sentenced to jail for 6 years with a minimum of 2. Not only does our own choices affect ourselves but we blatantly look past the affect we have on other people that have no bearing on that choice.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by loftie

I would still like to know how anyone can logically justify increasing the risk of driving on the road???

Disclaimer - This is NOT based on stastiscs - but hypothetical...

If you knew that you were more likely to have an accident (lets say 25% more likely) would you have 1 drinks and drive??
If you knew that you were more likely to have an accident by 40% would you have 2 drinks and drive??
If you knew that you were more likely to have an accident by 60% would you have 3 drinks and drive??

What part would you say that having that one drink, or one drink extra - was worth that risk?

I know i'd rather not increase the chances of a crash - and stay alive/injury free... for the sake of 1 drink...

Maybe you don't value your life as much as I do??

The problem with hypotheticals is they can lead to a false impression of truths.

Your figures that you have presented make for a compelling case if they are accurate. The problem is does one drink increase your chances of a crash by 25%? The answer is no it does not. Does 2 drinks increase your chances of a crash by 40%? The answer is no it does not.

BAC (%) Stage Clinical Symptoms
0.01 - 0.05 Subclinical
Behavior basically normal by ordinary observation.
0.03 - 0.12 Euphoria
Mild euphoria, sociability, talkativeness, increased self-confidence; decreased inhibitions. Diminution of attention, judgment and control. Beginning of sensory-motor impairment. Loss of efficiency in finer performance tests.
0.09 - 0.25 Excitement
Emotional instability; loss of critical judgment. Impairment of perception, memory and comprehension. Decreased sensitory response; increased reaction time. Reduced visual acuity; peripheral vision and glare recovery. Sensory-motor incoordination; impaired balance. Drowsiness.
0.18 - 0.30 Confusion
Disorientation, mental confusion; dizziness. Exaggerated emotional states. Disturbances of vision and of perception of color, form, motion and dimensions. Increased pain threshold. Increased muscular incoordination; staggering gait; slurred speech. Apathy, lethargy.
0.25 - 0.40 Stupor
General inertia; approaching loss of motor functions. Markedly decreased response to stimuli. Marked muscular incoordination; inability to stand or walk. Vomiting; incontinence. Impaired consciousness; sleep or stupor.
0.35 - 0.50 Coma
Complete unconsciousness. Depressed or abolished reflexes. Subnormal body temperature. Incontinence. Impairment of circulation and respiration. Possible death.
0.45 + Death
Death from respiratory arrest.

So, looking at the information above, lets assume 1-2 drinks (BAC <0.05) has no effect. Would I drive after two light beers over 2-3 hrs? Yes I would and yes I do. Would I drive after 2-3 heavy beers over 2-3 hours (some people would be >0.05 BAC)? No I would not and nor do I.

Se how the result of your hypothetical changed with more realistic data involved, now it would seem the 0.05% limit is correct.

I just got off the phone to the 2 people I know intimately that killed 4.5 persons while driving drunk.....

I ask them both the follwing question:

If the BAC was zero, would you have still drank alcohol at the party (both were leaving parties) and drove home that fateful night?

Person 1 (Male). Would have caught a cab to the party and then cab home.
Person 2 (Female). Would have just stayed the night.

Neither of these people are notorious drinkers but count their drinks, no criminal records, good driving records bar a couple of speeding fines and parking fines and for the most part law abiding citizens, with significanlty awsome jobs/careers.

Both were over 35 years of age at the time.

I have got irrefutable evidence and proof that those 2 would have adjusted their drinking habbits had there been a 0 BAC law.

I rest my case!

As for this one, since you keep bringing it up. I am going to be a bit of a straight shooter on this one.

The simple fact is that your friends had been drinking and pushed the limits. For them to say that there was at no time a thought going through their mind that they might be over the limit would be dishonest of them. They must have known that they were close, if not they should read up some of the literature that is available from a million sources to estimate the effects of the volume of alcohol and the BAC. At the end of the day, the responsibility was on them and they failed to act within the guidleines of society, society did not fail them. If they had those crashes at a BAC of <0.05% then it would be the law and society that may have failed them, but this is not the case so therefore the fault lies squarely on them, no one else.

The end result is they took a gamble and they got it wrong. Their actions were completely irresponsible and without excuse. I will never feel any sympathy for them in any way, shape or form. Yes a 0.0 BAC would have changed their actions, I am not disputing that but why should the rest of the responsible public be punished for their irresponsible behaviour? In my opinion we should not, I enjoy a light beer when out to dinner with friends and I have no desire of having that luxury taken off me by people such as this. God knows it is a luxury that I earn cleaning up the mess of people such as your friends.

I believe that we should supply people with good guidelines on what is safe (BAC 0.05%) and allow them to act with some responsibility. If they mess it up then punish them severely and send out all the booze busses you like. Even make it mandatory that police do a breath test on any form of traffic stop. I don't care, but lets not increase the "nanny state" mentality any more than what it already is.

[TS50]

Well said Gecko

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by HP4ME

It's not logic. The obeyed the laws but both miscalculated on this occasion and it cost them.

Seriously, you have to be kidding.

All the times they obeyed the laws previously does not count. The only one that counts is what laws they were obeying at the time they killed someone, and by your own admission at the time of the accident they were drunk (BAC >0.05%) so they were not obeying the law.

It is against the law to kill someone, if I murdered someone today but never had before, would I not still be a murderer?

And lets be real, the cost to them was nothing compared to the cost to the victims and their family, your friends got off light.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by MAD

I'm not suggesting making the penalties less harsh, just pointing out an example of similarity that the highest trauma caused by drink drivers are not the ones that misjudged themselves and accidentally drove at .06, but the ones that are driving at 2x,3x or 4x the limit. And in their case no change to the limit for the rest of society will change their attitude.


Exactly.

Agreed, you are completely right. I was just pointing out you near a clear line to enforce in the law. Having a fuzzy line, e.g 0.05% sometimes and 0.07% other times leads to too much confusion for both law enforcement and the public.

[RedHotGT]

Originally Posted by TS50

Every part of life is a risk, and yes we all determine how we evaluate and take those risks, but it dosnt mean we value our life any less than you

Correct - so why would you want to substantially increase your risk - if you could avoid it???

Why is it acceptable to have the risk???
Statistically you are more likely to have an accident at .05 than you are at .00....

If we use the same logic - Speed limits should be treated the same way....
Ie: 100km/h is the ideal maximum speed limit on this street - but hey... just drive at 130km/h if you like... its an increased risk... but its okay - we accept the increased risk... but if you go over 130km/h we'll book you...

For the record - I enjoy a drink or two... and have probably pushed the limits of .05 before...

But I still maintain - nobody has EVER provided a logical reason that we should allow the extra risk of driving after drinking...

I say again... for the sake of having 1-2 beers you can possibly double the risk of having an accident... are those beers that important to you?

[RedHotGT]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

BAC (%) Stage Clinical Symptoms
0.01 - 0.05 Subclinical
Behavior basically normal by ordinary observation.
0.03 - 0.12 Euphoria
Mild euphoria, sociability, talkativeness, increased self-confidence; decreased inhibitions. Diminution of attention, judgment and control. Beginning of sensory-motor impairment. Loss of efficiency in finer performance tests.

True - my hypotheticals were based on no statistics...

But using the above information - it is possible for someone between .03 and .05 (legally allowed to drive) to have a reduced level of judgement and control and have impaired sensory-motor skills...

Alcohol effects everyone differently... as we know there is no set 'forumula' that is 100% accurate... If I have 1 beer, and you have 1 beer chances are that our BAC will be different based on metabolism, weight, etc etc...

So again - why allow the risk? The roads are dangerous enough for day to day driving... So why do we - as a society - allow the increased risk to be acceptable?

We don't allow truck drivers or bus drivers the same allowance on the road...
We don't allow pilots or sailors the same allowance in the air or at sea...
We don't allow forklift drivers, machinery operators, etc the same allowance at the workplace/jobsite...

And in most cases - the above mentioned 'professional' operators have had extra training and more experience...

So why do we allow joe average take the extra risk??

[ThaFlash]

gecko, flappist has made this thread about evidence now, so i got a statement from both parties and presented their statement as evidence in my favour and are witnesses to support my view (which to be honest means nothing to me).

i have presented more evidence here than anyone else in a discussion i care nothing about.

so far your words just like flappists are feable, weak and twisted like that of an old man.

i went to the source and got some facts like the corrupt op wanted, and that is that.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by loftie

Why is it acceptable to have the risk???
Statistically you are more likely to have an accident at .05 than you are at .00....

I would like to see those stats, could someone please post them?

Seems to go against what the government were saying when they introduced the 0.05 limit instead of the 0.08 limit. They stated there was compelling evidence that 0.05% was the limit of competent driving, anything over and driving ability was adversely affected.

Taking into account there is irrefutable evidence that any human traveling at any speed above walking pace is more likely to have some form of misadventure leading to harm to themselves or others, lets just ban all speed above walking.

Lets ban all cars, busses, trucks, planes, boats, bicycles, tricycles and mobility scooters etc, they all involve risks. While we are at it lets ban tobacco, medications, fast food, alcohol, high rise buildings, swimming pools, open water areas and firearms etc because they all involve risks as well.

[TS50]

Being an old fart,when i was younger, and before a lot was known or policed on drink driving, I drove well over the limit many a time, However with the knowledge now, there is no way I would do that now,
Wont even drive if i think i would be near .05
However, the point is even driving at 0.00 is a huge risk, because the idiot coming the other way dosnt have as much sense as me, and is probabbly driving at .12 or something
My argument is that this fool will still drive when he is .12 even of the limit was .02 or .00
So that risk is always there
I have drummed into my 3 sons so much about drink driving, and thankfully that seems to have worked, as all 3 wont drive if they have been drinking
Its education, not draconiam laws, that we need

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by loftie

True - my hypotheticals were based on no statistics...

But using the above information - it is possible for someone between .03 and .05 (legally allowed to drive) to have a reduced level of judgement and control and have impaired sensory-motor skills...

Alcohol effects everyone differently... as we know there is no set 'forumula' that is 100% accurate... If I have 1 beer, and you have 1 beer chances are that our BAC will be different based on metabolism, weight, etc etc...

So again - why allow the risk? The roads are dangerous enough for day to day driving... So why do we - as a society - allow the increased risk to be acceptable?

We don't allow truck drivers or bus drivers the same allowance on the road...
We don't allow pilots or sailors the same allowance in the air or at sea...
We don't allow forklift drivers, machinery operators, etc the same allowance at the workplace/jobsite...

And in most cases - the above mentioned 'professional' operators have had extra training and more experience...

So why do we allow joe average take the extra risk??

Ok, I do see your point and actually agree to an extent.

Now lets consider this, if having a car stereo on provided enough of a distraction to increase your risk of crash more than a BAC of 0.03%, would you suggest car stereos be banned also?

What if having less than a documented and proven 8 hrs sleep prior to any driving was proven to increase your risk of crash more than a BAC >0.02%, would you support law enforcement monitoring of our sleep habits.

My question is, at what point does this all stop and the onus is put back on the public to behave with some responsibility?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by HP4ME

gecko, flappist has made this thread about evidence now, so i got a statement from both parties and presented their statement as evidence in my favour and are witnesses to support my view (which to be honest means nothing to me).

i have presented more evidence here than anyone else in a discussion i care nothing about.

so far your words just like flappists are feable, weak and twisted like that of an old man.

i went to the source and got some facts like the corrupt op wanted, and that is that.

All a question of perspective I guess.

You see your evidence (which is anecdotal at best) as proof that the lawful BAC is wrong.

I (and many others here) see your evidence as potential proof that there is nothing wrong with the legal limit, just in the penalties and the enforcement of those laws.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by TS50

Being an old fart,when i was younger, and before a lot was known or policed on drink driving, I drove well over the limit many a time, However with the knowledge now, there is no way I would do that now,
Wont even drive if i think i would be near .05
However, the point is even driving at 0.00 is a huge risk, because the idiot coming the other way dosnt have as much sense as me, and is probabbly driving at .12 or something
My argument is that this fool will still drive when he is .12 even of the limit was .02 or .00
So that risk is always there
I have drummed into my 3 sons so much about drink driving, and thankfully that seems to have worked, as all 3 wont drive if they have been drinking
Its education, not draconiam laws, that we need

One of the best posts so far

My hat off to you sir!

[ThaFlash]

gecko i have brought more to the table in favour of my view than you have with yours.

you just keep searching for the meaningless stats...

also i haven't added what the victims family has said in their statements to the media (but just for me to further solidify my argument, it would not be appropriate)

it will blow the lot of you away including this thread.

remember i am coming from a realistic perspective, i have talked to the killers and stared at the victims family face to face, all you guys have is,she said he said and frivolous information at your disposal.

i am after all basing my view on reality, can you say the same?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by HP4ME

gecko i have brought more to the table in favour of my view than you have with yours.

you just keep searching for the meaningless stats...

also i haven't added what the victims family has said in their statements to the media (but just for me to further solidify my argument, it would not be appropriate)

it will blow the lot of you away including this thread.

remember i am coming from a realistic perspective, i have talked to the killers and stared at the victims family face to face, all you guys have is,she said he said and frivolous information at your disposal.

i am after all basing my view on reality, can you say the same?

I will leave it at this, perhaps you should look into what the people you are disagreeing with do for a living. There is a potential that my view of reality is based on more experience than yours (if those two experiences are your limit of experience).

I have said my piece and will leave this line of discussion alone now, good luck and stay safe so I do not see you at work.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by HP4ME

gecko i have brought more to the table in favour of my view than you have with yours.

you just keep searching for the meaningless stats...

also i haven't added what the victims family has said in their statements to the media (but just for me to further solidify my argument, it would not be appropriate)

it will blow the lot of you away including this thread.

remember i am coming from a realistic perspective, i have talked to the killers and stared at the victims family face to face, all you guys have is,she said he said and frivolous information at your disposal.

i am after all basing my view on reality, can you say the same?

So what were the recorded BAC levels of the drivers?
This information will be in the coronial report.

Do you really think that you are the only member of AFF who has had direct dealings with fatal car accidents and those involved?

[ThaFlash]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I will leave it at this, perhaps you should look into what the people you are disagreeing with do for a living. There is a potential that my view of reality is based on more experience than yours (if those two experiences are your limit of experience).

if that was the topic i would look into it, again feable words like that of an old man.

let me know when you find those STATS! then you may have something to contribute...

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I will leave it at this, perhaps you should look into what the people you are disagreeing with do for a living. There is a potential that my view of reality is based on more experience than yours (if those two experiences are your limit of experience).

I have said my piece and will leave this line of discussion alone now, good luck and stay safe so I do not see you at work.

I have no idea how you guys do it, having to scrap people up off the road day in, day out after they do stupid things like drink driving etc.

A family friend used to be a Crash Investigator for NSW Police, I wouldn't wish that job on my worst enemy after what it did to him.

[ThaFlash]

flappist you made it about evidence and i don't for one minute think i am the only one, but I am the only one that has obliged you with some form of evidence, and that's what it's about for me, to stick it up ya mista 5 millionposts and rep power!...hehehe...

you want their BAC, well buddy perhaps another time....

until then stay corrupted

oh btw, i bet you feel real stink about giving me rep points on a previous post eh?
LOL...

[Fireblade]

This has gone well past original OP's first post and now down to sledging other posters time for a thread close.

[ThaFlash]

you are right F6

i apologise, i have been out of line...

and am happy for the mod to delete any of my inapropriate posts so this thread may continue for others.

sincerely

HP4ME

[SteveJH]

HP4ME,

Why are you being so hostile? People like Gecko have a lot of experience on stuff like these. And I don't see flappist as having said anything that would deserve such a hostile response.

As for flappist's talking about most people knowing people who have been killed in a car accident. I know of several people who have been killed in car (and other) accidents.

[ThaFlash]

i apoligised and i see the error of my ways

i have been humbled

[flappist]

Originally Posted by HP4ME

flappist you made it about evidence and i don't for one minute think i am the only one, but I am the only one that has obliged you with some form of evidence, and that's what it's about for me, to stick it up ya mista 5 millionposts and rep power!...hehehe...

you want their BAC, well buddy perhaps another time....

until then stay corrupted

oh btw, i bet you feel real stink about giving me rep points on a previous post eh?
LOL...

No, not at all. When I gave you some rep it was because what you said at that time had merit.

How you are conducting yourself at the moment though tends to indicate that it may have been an abberation.

I suggest you cool down. This is just the internet, nothing serious....

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by HP4ME

gecko i have brought more to the table in favour of my view than you have with yours.

you just keep searching for the meaningless stats...

also i haven't added what the victims family has said in their statements to the media (but just for me to further solidify my argument, it would not be appropriate)

it will blow the lot of you away including this thread.

remember i am coming from a realistic perspective, i have talked to the killers and stared at the victims family face to face, all you guys have is,she said he said and frivolous information at your disposal.

i am after all basing my view on reality, can you say the same?

No you havent. You have a lack of understanding of the value of the 'evidence' you presented. While it is heart wrenching, it isnt proof of much other than two people you know, screwed the lives of others, and left people feeling like crap, 4 dead, and one life altered, by making poor decisions.

Anecdotal evidence is something that while a true account of events, is not evidence of a conclusion, that is the conclusion does not necessarily flow from it. ie: My uncle worked with asbestos for decades, he never took precautions, noone did at the time, and he died at 94 from old age. Asbestos is not harmful, ever.

The anecdotal story, does not lead to the conclusion that asbestos is harmless. You could change the asbestos for smoking or doing heroin if it helps to understand it.

Gecko has provided empirical data, while not necessarily perfect, it is far more reliable than anecdotal evidence.


That doesnt take away from anecdotal evidence, it has its value and place in discussion, but it is far from reliable for drawing conclusions. It is too easy for example, to say "I wouldnt drive" after the fact. Hindsight, makes us all geniuses, and angels.


You are aware gecko is a ambulance officer right? Id guess he's seen more fatals, more families, more reasons than most on these forums.

[ThaFlash]

without the benifit of expression it may seem hostile but i am very calm and relaxed and as i mentioned earlier i don't have a strong view on the subject.

i do apologise if was taken the wrong way, but that is the nature of text on a screen.

i suspected we have police officers or similar here making a point or too.

i was really following the lead of flappist and the way changed the course of the thread.

i don't know how much follow up an ambo does or a police officer for that matter but I am living with the killers in a sense and I can take their perpective of the incident and provide more proof than what people think is acceptable.

[Auslandau]

To disagree is fine but as said previously by Flappist ...... disagree without the personal insults.

I will say though

Originally Posted by HP4ME

i am after all basing my view on reality, can you say the same?

........emphatically and an absolute ..... YES.

From now, please keep things civil.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by HP4ME

i don't know how much follow up an ambo does or a police officer for that matter but I am living with the killers in a sense and I can take their perpective of the incident and provide more proof than what people think is acceptable.

I am not going to go into the sledging you have dished out, you have apologised and I think that is commendable.

I think one of your comments has hit the nail on the head, have you considered that because the two drivers to which you refer are your friends, that maybe you are a little to close and personally involved to have an unbiased perspective? By that I mean your friends, as a result of their clear remorse they hold for the incident, look for reasons to lessen their pain. That is normal human nature and it is actually a positive sign in many circumstances that they have learnt from the experience. As a result of your personal relationship with them you will also have an element of "looking for logical reason", it is natural. I say it is a possible positive because it appears the chance of them being in that situation again seems very low as does the chance of you or all of your friends having the same thing happen. The problem is that personal involvement alters your perception of the facts.

Your argument is also weakened by the fact that you have not disclosed what their actual BAC was. If it was 0.055 we could understand somewhat where you are coming from and maybe even agree with you as that would demonstrate that they made an error but with respect to the law it was a minor one. If they had a BAC of 0.09 for example, we are not likely to have the same opinion as they were considerably over and it was not just a small error. I know what my assumptions are but I think I will keep that to myself and allow you fair opportunity to consider this and reply. I am not saying I have a strong suspicion they were over by a lot, I am just saying that the lack of information leads to assumptions.

By the way, I am a paramedic and if you had read my responses you would have picked up on that, go back over them and you will see it. My experience is over 6 years in a city ambulance service and I have personally attended as both a clinical crew or scene controller on many fatal accidents. I have also attended too many traffic crashes to even attempt to count them. Although an appreciable amount did have alcohol involved, only a small percentage had illegal BAC levels. In my experience the leading causes of traffic crashes are driver inattention, fatigue and speed, probably in that order. Notice that I have not mentioned alcohol in that because in all honesty it probably only involved at low levels in 1% of the crashes I go to, illegal levels would account for way less (I think 0.001% would be generous).

No we do not follow up on the families of the victims very often, nor should we. We have to deal with the trauma of the scene (often the families are there) and then data dump it as soon as we can so we can roll out on the next case. We have to be able to do that for our own psychological well being. If we were to take a personal interest in each victim it would end up burning us out and a paramedic would only last a few years. That does not mean we do not care, actually quite the opposite as it means we can care more effectively. Does that ability to detach mean that we are not able to have an excellent understanding of the effects of this topic, not at all and in fact that we probably have a lot better understanding than the average joe. What we experience is not limited to what we hear and pictures we see. It extends to what we smell, taste, feel and sometimes our nightmares. Being able to detach is a key element to our survival and something that I will freely admit I sometimes struggle to do.