when you screw up...

Mental wrote: But agree or not, it is the law of the land.

Which you've just shown is a non-sensical law. Ergo, it should be stricken from the books.

I think it all depends on which side of the dashboard you are on.

I am starting to rethink how I tell people I was almost killed by a drunk driver. I don't like the word "victim" anymore. Screw that. I dealt with it, forgave the guy that nailed me, and moved on with my life. Sometimes I even forget which leg is the Erector set.

There is some state that puts a red license plate on your car if you get a DUI. I like that. I like putting their face in the newspaper even better.

Want to stop people from driving drunk? Make the death penalty an option for those who kill someone while driving drunk. Nobody will take it seriously until the first person gets lit up on the chair for a DUI. Then people will pay attention.

slefain wrote: Want to stop people from driving drunk? Make the death penalty an option for those who kill someone while driving drunk. Nobody will take it seriously until the first person gets lit up on the chair for a DUI. Then people will pay attention.

While I'm not quite that far along, I do agree that any injury-resulting accident should be treated the same way as if someone had accidently discharged a firearm and had similar results.

Here's a scary side note / observation:

Anyone driving with a suspended license is no longer an insured driver.

Datsun1500 wrote: OK but what do you do in this situation? My brother was sitting at a red light. Guy behind him does not stop, hits them doing about 45 MPH and sends them into another car. Brother blows .08 the guy that hit him is stone cold sober. By MD law it is now an alcohol related accident and my brother is charged with it and the resulting damage to all 3 cars. The guy that was not paying attention gets off. fair? Let's go with the death penalty discussion from above and say the guy that did not stop was killed, by law then someone with no fault whatsoever gets the chair?

For your brother's situation, it is a 1 in a million. For the other 999,999 times someone dies in a drunk driving accident it is the drunk's fault. Your brother got screwed, but he also blew .08 so he should have gotten at least a DUI.

Woody wrote: Here's a scary side note / observation: Anyone driving with a suspended license is no longer an insured driver.

Anyone driving impaired in Ontario forfeits the insurance on their vehicle, unless that vehicle is leased, then it remains insured.

What does that tell you?

While I don't think drunk driving is a good idea, I wish more emphasis was put on the more serious problem of incompetent drivers, which cause the overwhelming majority of accidents.

slefain wrote: / For your brother's situation, it is a 1 in a million. /

No it's not. It's dirt common. Accidents happen with nobody drunk all the time. Those same people aren't suddenly less likely to cause an accident when someone else nearby is drunk.

That's not to say the sober party is usually at fault. But it's still very common.

keethrax wrote:

slefain wrote: / For your brother's situation, it is a 1 in a million. /

No it's not. It's dirt common. Accidents happen with nobody drunk all the time. Those same people aren't suddenly less likely to cause an accident when someone else nearby is drunk. That's not to say the sober party is *usually* at fault. But it's still very common.

His brother's situation was definitely not common. Getting blamed for a 3 car accident that you didn't cause just because you happened to be the drunk person on the scene is not common. People get in accidents all the time stone cold sober, this one situation though was a long shot of long shots.

keethrax wrote:

slefain wrote: / For your brother's situation, it is a 1 in a million. /

No it's not. It's dirt common. Accidents happen with nobody drunk all the time. Those same people aren't suddenly less likely to cause an accident when someone else nearby is drunk. That's not to say the sober party is *usually* at fault. But it's still very common.

His brother's situation was definitely not common. Getting blamed for a 3 car accident that you didn't cause just because you happened to be the drunk person on the scene is not common. People get in accidents all the time stone cold sober, this one situation though was a long shot of long shots.

The law in that state says that the drunk guys is automatically at fault. That's why he got dinged. Are you really going to claim that sober people are suddenly less capable of causing accidents in that state because there's a legally drunk guy in the vicinity? If not, then logic dictates that the sober guy is commonly at fault but the drunk guy gets blamed.

That's not to say that the drunk guy isn't at fault more often than not. But the sober guy doesn't have to cause >50% for it to be common.

Let's play made up numbers:

Let's say the (lowish BAC like 0.08) drunk guy is actually at fault ten times more often than the sober guy. That still means than 1/11th (9%) of the drunk vs sober accidental are the sober guys fault. That's not rare, nor is it a small #. Feel free to make it 20 times if you want. ~5% is still not a small # of the total.

For it to be a one in a million occurrence drunk driving would have to be so bad you'd be in an accident almost 100% of the time, or sober driving would have to be so safe there were never sober accidents.

Not only is it not one in a million (which I realize is a figure of speech), I'd bet an awful lot it's over one in a hundred (or even one in twenty). Which means a lot of people are 1) getting screwed more than they're actions justify and 2) getting off despite causing an accident (depending on which person you're looking at)

As far as I'm concerned, if you knowingly get into a car drunk (or high) and you are actually at fault (none of this bullE36 M3 automatically at fault stuff) and kill someone that makes it premeditated.

keethrax wrote:

slefain wrote:

keethrax wrote:

slefain wrote: / For your brother's situation, it is a 1 in a million. /

No it's not. It's dirt common. Accidents happen with nobody drunk all the time. Those same people aren't suddenly less likely to cause an accident when someone else nearby is drunk. That's not to say the sober party is *usually* at fault. But it's still very common.

His brother's situation was definitely not common. Getting blamed for a 3 car accident that you didn't cause just because you happened to be the drunk person on the scene is not common. People get in accidents all the time stone cold sober, this one situation though was a long shot of long shots.

The law in that state says that the drunk guys is automatically at fault. That's why he got dinged. Are you really going to claim that sober people are suddenly less capable of causing accidents in that state because there's a legally drunk guy in the vicinity? If not, then logic dictates that the sober guy is commonly at fault but the drunk guy gets blamed. That's not to say that the drunk guy isn't at fault more often than not. Let's play made up numbers: But let's say the drunk guy is actually at fault ten times more often than the sober guy. That still means than 1/11th (9%) of the drunk vs sober accidental are the sober guys fault. That's not rare, nor is it a small #. Feel free to make it 20 times if you want. ~5% is still not a small # of the total.

I'm not claiming anything. I'm simply stating that his brother's accident and the outcome are a rare occurrence. The state law is lousy and totally throws out logic when determining accident fault. His brother got screwed by what I consider a freak accident. Are you saying that being the middle person of a three car accident while blowing .08 in that state is common?

And yes my original math figures were purely for emphasis on the rarity of his situation.

slefain wrote: I'm not claiming anything. I'm simply stating that his brother's accident and the outcome are a rare occurrence. The state law is lousy and totally throws out logic when determining accident fault. His brother got screwed by what I consider a freak accident. Are you saying that being the middle person of a three car accident while blowing .08 in that state is common?

That's what you're going with?

Nice.

Fine. you win. The very specific and exact details aren't that common. If you pick enough details out of any single accident it's a "one in a million" incident. Congratulations. You've demonstrated absolutely nothing useful or relevant.

keethrax wrote:

slefain wrote: I'm not claiming anything. I'm simply stating that his brother's accident and the outcome are a rare occurrence. The state law is lousy and totally throws out logic when determining accident fault. His brother got screwed by what I consider a freak accident. Are you saying that being the middle person of a three car accident while blowing .08 in that state is common?

That's what you're going with? Nice. Fine. you win. The very specific and exact details aren't that common. If you pick enough details out of any single accident it's a "one in a million" incident. Congratulations. You've demonstrated absolutely nothing useful or relevant.

No, I've proved that his brother's situation was a fluke. That is the only point I wanted to make. You made it sound like it happens all the time.

My original suggestion WAY back was that killing someone while DUI should allow the death penalty to be put on the table for punishment. He posted a situation that rarely happens to play devil's advocate. I never said mandatory death penalty, just an option.

This whole argument is pointless anyway. Not trying to piss you off, I just wanted my point to be clear.

The law that states that the drunk guy is automatically responsible is TOTAL bullE36 M3. Sure, the above situation doesn't happen that often, but it does happen. Put the blame where it lies.

slefain wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: OK but what do you do in this situation? My brother was sitting at a red light. Guy behind him does not stop, hits them doing about 45 MPH and sends them into another car. Brother blows .08 the guy that hit him is stone cold sober. By MD law it is now an alcohol related accident and my brother is charged with it and the resulting damage to all 3 cars. The guy that was not paying attention gets off. fair? Let's go with the death penalty discussion from above and say the guy that did not stop was killed, by law then someone with no fault whatsoever gets the chair?

For your brother's situation, it is a 1 in a million. For the other 999,999 times someone dies in a drunk driving accident it is the drunk's fault. Your brother got screwed, but he also blew .08 so he should have gotten at least a DUI.

No, he should have AT MOST gotten a DUI. What else would you charge a guy with that was sitting in his car at .08?

slefain wrote: No, I've proved that his brother's situation was a fluke. That is the only point I wanted to make. You made it sound like it happens all the time.

Without specifying the incident to absurdity it does happen all the time. If it = a drunk person is blamed for a sober persons berkeley up. Which is exactly what his anecdote was illustrating. And what you took offense to.

Does it happen more often than the drunk being at fault? Of course not. But it doesn't take a very large % for it to not be a fluke. And I've demonstrated why, while you've retreated to specificity to he point of absurdity, then hiding behind that to cover your bogus fluke claim.

Unless sober drivers magically become better when a legally drunk person is around, logic dictates is happens often enough to not be a "fluke."

keethrax wrote:

slefain wrote: No, I've proved that his brother's situation was a fluke. That is the only point I wanted to make. You made it sound like it happens all the time.

Without specifying the incident to absurdity it *does* happen all the time. If it = a drunk person is blamed for a sober persons berkeley up. Which is exactly what his anecdote was illustrating. And what you took offense to. Does it happen more often than the drunk being at fault? Of course not. But it doesn't take a very large % for it to not be a fluke. And I've demonstrated why, while you've retreated to specificity to he point of absurdity, then hiding behind that to cover your bogus fluke claim. Unless sober drivers magically become better when a legally drunk person is around, logic dictates is happens often enough to not be a "fluke."

Fine. I yield. You sir win 100 internets. I should have defined a numeric value to "fluke". How about this: more often than not the drunk driver is at fault in an accident.

slefain wrote: Fine. I yield. You sir win 100 internets.

I'll buy one off you.

Zomby woof wrote:

slefain wrote: Fine. I yield. You sir win 100 internets.

I'll buy one off you.

Sorry, those were my last 100 that I gave to Keethrax. I've got some Flooz laying around here somewhere, and maybe some Beanz in the couch cushions.

Somebody selling internets? I need some.

When two worlds collide:

Cuz's husband was driving home after a few at the local tavern in the country, couple miles from home. Guy walking the road steps into the lane as cuz rounds a corner, bam, cuz hits the guy and kills him. Cuz was at .08, the staggering pedestrian was over 3X the limit. Cuz was cited for DUI only, no other charges. No civil trial either.

slefain wrote: Fine. I yield. You sir win 100 internets. I should have defined a numeric value to "fluke". How about this: more often than not the drunk driver is at fault in an accident.

Wow. We've gone from fluke = one in a million (admittedly a figure of speech, but clearly representing something rare) to fluke = 49% to try to bolster your crap argument. That may be one of the biggest after the fact backpedals I've ever seen. With redefinitions like that, you should be a politician.

That it was delivered as part of a whiny passive-aggressive post like that just makes it all the more priceless, and makes you all the more qualified for said job as a politician.

keethrax wrote:

slefain wrote: Fine. I yield. You sir win 100 internets. I should have defined a numeric value to "fluke". How about this: more often than not the drunk driver is at fault in an accident.

Wow. We've gone from fluke = one in a million (admittedly a figure of speech, but clearly representing something rare) to fluke = 49% to try to bolster your crap argument. That may be one of the biggest after the fact backpedals I've ever seen. With redefinitions like that, you should be a politician. That it was delivered as part of a whiny passive-aggressive post like that just makes it all the more priceless, and makes you all the more qualified for said job as a politician.

We chose two different points to argue about. You chose to go one way, I went another. I didn't feel like arguing because honestly i was getting tired of it and don't like to carry ill will against folks on this board. I changed my statement to basically get you off my back. Call it backpedaling if you want. If it means that much to you to be right, then you are right. You win. I'm done.

All this really goes to show is:

1) Laws that automatically assign fault in a collision based on things irrelevant to the situation are stupid.

2) Allowing the presence of alchohol in the bloodstream of anyone involved in any way with a collision to be called an "alchohol-related accident" is stupid.

3) A good statistician can make the numbers show whatever they want them to.

ReverendDexter wrote: All this really goes to show is: 1) Laws that automatically assign fault in a collision based on things irrelevant to the situation are stupid. 2) Allowing the presence of alchohol in the bloodstream of anyone involved in any way with a collision to be called an "alchohol-related accident" is stupid. 3) A good statistician can make the numbers show whatever they want them to.

Ding!

Automatic fault ranks right up there with zero tolerance (for many things, zero tolerance in some cases is clear cut enough).

Bureaucracies hate allowing people to actually use their judgement and make real decisions. It implies that individuals might just be capable of doing exactly that. A concept that's an anathema to any self-respecting bureaucracy which gladly trades the ability to use judgment for the ability to duck responsibility.