why is alcohol legal: the george best/opening hours thread

Here in the US we have the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD). These are organisations that argue against over indulgence in general and having sober drivers (one in a crowd is a "designated driver" and doesn't drink -- presumably this alternates on different evenings) or that people take public transportation (buses, cabs, etc) or have an agreement with parents to shuttle them with no questions asked (I'd rather drive my son home safely than pick him up at the hospital or worse) - with a pre-agreed result (loss of privilages for a week). It puts responsibility on the shoulders of the drinkers to have a safe way home, one that does not endanger others.This solves the problem of drunk driving while not being puritanical about drinking.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

so has hemp and other stimulants.

You can also be just as bad a driver, just as slow on reflexes and just as bad at being aware of what is going on around you if you are extremely tired and not on any drug\substance at all. You could also be, hate to say it, too old. Or just too immature, regardless of actual age.So yes: state of consciousness to some measurable degree, behavior commensurate with the rational use of a lethal machine. Test ability not what's limiting it?Get ticketed for operation of a vehicle while in an unfit condition.Why is drunk driving worse than any other {inability\unabled} driving?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The fallacy of the scientific result as a gospel truth.There is a loose correlation between the alcoholic content of the blood and the ability of different people to cope with situations.Some are blinded by a drink or two, while others can drink all night and be better than the former. My brother participated in a study, and actually was able to peform better with a little alcohol than with none. Bad for the study eh?And look at people who have conditions like ADD and ADHD and what they are able to concentrate on in tasks -- I know I am easily distracted, almost to being unable to ignore things around me.Ability to perform tasks can be measured and can be tested for getting a license and repeated after every accident.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

So you would rather let anyone drive and pay the cost of accidents and injuries and deaths before sorting out who is really just plain incapable of driving safely and knowing their limits?I had my van hit on a residential road with a 20 mph speed limit, and it was parked. Is that person competent to drive? They were on the way to work and no alcohol was involved. Should that make a difference? Should the police give them a lighter ticket than they would if he had been drunk? He had a valid licence to hit a parked vehicle on a 20 mph residential road?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

just saying that looking at one side of the costs is not sufficient in evaluating the cost of road safety. I don't ask for perfection, just competence. Being incompetent should be a barrier to getting a license. Demonstrating incompetence, by such things as hitting parked vehicles on slow residential roads, should trigger evaluation of competence. Just as demonstrating incompetence by driving while incapacitated does. The fallacy of popularity? This just demonstrates a very lax attitude about having competent (and responsible) drivers, not that this is a good thing to occur eh?btw, do you think that a driver with a record of hitting parked vehicles while sober is likely to be a better driver drunk (or tired or whatever) than a person who hasn't?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Being common does not excuse it: that is just the fallacy of popularity. Just because it happens a lot it is okay??? Heck spousal abuse is not a problem then.But in reality, if we're going to talk about commonality of cases, most drivers don't hit parked vehicles that are right in front of them with clear visiblity and good pavement. Otherwise our roads would be impassible, eh?Reiterate ... this was on a twenty mph road: that's as fast as a bicycle rides. What's the stopping distance on good pavement at that speed?http://www.edmunds.com/...riving/articles/43810/article.html: 20 mph = 20x5280/60/60 ft/sec = 29.33 fps
so in 1.5 seconds the car has travelled 44.00 ft. (reaction time distance)... can't find a quick ref for actual stopping (braking distance) from 20 mph, but we can assume a D = kv² relationship from kinetic energy (inertia) and solve from 60 mph to get
k=138/60²=0.038333...
so D₂₀=(0.038333)20²=15.333 ft
3 times longer for reaction than actual stopping, but total distance covered is ~60 ft. That's 3 car lengths.I was parked after an intersection with no parking zones each side of the intersection -- over 100 ft clear distance to see (unless you are following the car in front so closely you cannot see where you are going == do I need to say it? incompetent or irresponsible?)Safe following distance based on 3 second rule:
What is a Safe Following Distance? (3 Second Rule) for 20 mph that's 29.3 fps x 3 = 88 ftThat leaves you an extra 28 ft to actually stop in if you are a responsible competent driver. Almost enough distance to actually brake 3 different times (for the faint of heart breakers). From 20 mph.What's the excuse?We can also talk about engineers with standards for roads, with widths of driving and parking lanes set so that the average idiot doesn't have to tax their brain excessively wondering if they have enough room to get by ...This guy hit my bumper with a good foot overlap.What's the excuse? No, I am really equating {drinking and driving}, and {driving in an unsafe manner} with being irresponsible (and stopping afterwards is only part of responsibility ... you can be responsible before an event, not just after it).I am also saying that the standards for good driving and for road design takes care of the expected imperfections in control that are involved. And that anything beyond the expected imperfections is due to incompetence - inability to meet the norm of average behavior that the roads are more than adequately designed for.What's the excuse?Of course then you have the idiots that waste 44ft of reaction distance by hitting the horn first, so they have to repeat the whole scenario, but that's another level of incompetence (knowing the appropriate reaction).Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Ah, then "Brownie" wasn't incompetent. Glad that is sorted out...It is simple - he failed to miss a parked car with more than apple opportunity for anyone driving in a responsible manner.Or do you really think that all drivers are competent enough for the purpose and a constant level of damage to vehicles is a mark of this competence?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

No, the first is an alternate example of something that is common, showing that your argument that something is common is not any reason for it to be considered acceptable or good in any way.The second is an example of someone who without any prior history in the position was incompetent to perform the duties of the position, thus refuting your point that they need a history to show incompetence. Fascinating. So 100% of american drivers are competent to drive?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

With this post I am done with this topic, as it is so far off topic anyway.The person in question did not just make a mistake, they made a definite error in judgment.This is not a case of barely bumping the car ahead at the light or while parking or any other little nudges that occur, this was a full on impact that was beyond the capability of the bumpers to contain the forces.This was not a case of getting just barely out of line, but of missing the goal by over a foot.Your continued comparison of this to lots of common little nudges and side swipes is a false comparison and does not address the issue of this persons failures.This is similar to saying that all people get their cheeks patted from time to time, so getting slapped is okay too.Are you honestly saying there should be no consequences for a driver that performs that badly?As far as I am concerned this person was incompetent to drive because they displayed the kind of error in judgement that could easily result in serious injury or death in other situations.You have said nothing to convince me otherwise.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.