New Mexico trip a bust
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Packing an equalizer
Next: nortons
From: don (Calgary) on 4 Nov 2009 19:50 On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:28:17 -0800 (PST), "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On 4 Nov, 13:14, Shantideva Spirit <macmi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 4:57�am, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > OK, next question: why is the US road death rate about three and a >> > half times ours? >> >> Lack of public transportation in the States? > >So Americans *deliberately* drink and drive? Idiot. It could be said everyone who drinks and drives does so deliberately, regardless of their nationality.
From: BrianNZ on 4 Nov 2009 20:03 MikeWhy wrote: > "BrianNZ" <brian(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote in message > news:4af20b2c$1(a)news.orcon.net.nz... >> MikeWhy wrote: >>> "BrianNZ" <brian(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote in message >>> news:4af1f45c$1(a)news.orcon.net.nz... >>>> >>>> I drink and drive all the time.....I don't drive drunk. >>> >>> Not till you get caught at it anyway. As he said, Pot/Kettle. >>> >>> >> >> >> To stay under the limit is as simple as moderating my intake. They set >> the limit, I'll stay under it. It is not illegal to drink and drive. >> >> I'm not the one using lack of public transport to blame for drunks on >> the road, so the pot/kettle thing doesn't fit? > > Some leave the bar staggering drunk and don't have enough thought > capacity left to consider what they're doing. Others know they're drunk, > but take comfort in not having been caught before, or hope to get home > without drawing attention to themselves. Still others, probably the > majority, believe themselves to be below the limit or at least > demonstrably unimpaired. That's who I meant when I wrote pot/kettle. I > don't care about public transportation or excuses. Alcohol impairs > judgement. Ergo, the impaired isn't qualified to judge his own fitness. > FWIW. > The thinking has to happen before the drinking. The person needs to make a decision on how much they are going to drink and have the ability to either stick to it and stay under the limit or arrange for other transport home. As it effects different people in different ways, it's important to be able to judge how you feel. If you only have a couple of standard drinks and know you are under the limit, but don't feel good enough to drive, then use your own judgment (albeit impaired) and don't drive till you feel better.
From: BrianNZ on 4 Nov 2009 20:11 Vito wrote: > "BrianNZ" <brian(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote > | The numbers are irrelevant....it's the attitude that counts? It was the > | way he was trying to blame a lack of public transport for drunks on the > | road. It is completely the drunks fault if he/she gets behind the wheel > | and causes a crash. If your drinking is so out of control that you can't > | have just a couple (and stay under the limit)...as in you need to keep > | drinking past that point.....then they need professional help to get > | themselves under control, rather than find external things to blame > | their problem on. > > Some urban neighborhoods have enough bars that the drinkers can walk to and > from them avoiding driving drunk. Yes, it is the drunks fault but most > drunks are in denial. "I don't drink. My friends do! I just have a few > beers. And "I never drive drunk. ..... Then keep nailing the drunk drivers until they aren't in denial? I have no problems with my friends drinking if I'm not. thats their choice. Glad you don't drive drunk. > | I drink and drive all the time.....I don't drive drunk." > > Personally, I never drink and drive at all. > > It's a difficult problem. If you fine the drunk his wife and kids have > less. If you put him in jail he cannot support them. I lean toward caning > and flogging but that's 'cruel and unusual' in this country. > Fine them, take their licences and/or throw them in jail. It's not like it's a new law and there are plenty of 'self help' agencies out there that alcoholics can turn to for help. If thats what it takes to snap them into reality, so be it. Thats what laws are for? To reform people?
From: MikeWhy on 4 Nov 2009 20:47 "BrianNZ" <brian(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote in message news:4af2286a$1(a)news.orcon.net.nz... > Fine them, take their licences and/or throw them in jail. It's not like > it's a new law and there are plenty of 'self help' agencies out there that > alcoholics can turn to for help. If thats what it takes to snap them into > reality, so be it. Thats what laws are for? To reform people? That is the real question, and we're not just talking about drunks anymore here. Reform them into what? In who's image? Laws have never made a good neighbor out of a bad one.
From: S'mee on 4 Nov 2009 21:56
On Nov 4, 11:20 am, Shantideva Spirit <macmi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: ah the prattling rat attempts to expound on reality wihen he knows nothing of reality...go back to contemplating your uncles navel, chickenhawk. |