www.ditl.org

Serapha wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:I don't believe so - while alcohol is one of the major causes of poor driving, it isn't the only one.

Sorry, you don't get to use that excuse. When I quoted those numbers, it was ONLY the deaths caused by alcohol, read my post again. 40% of auto deaths are caused by alcohol. Ban drinking entirely and you will save thousands of lives every single year. More than ten times as many lives as will be saved by banning smoking.

The death tolls are too high either way. One time I was passing one of those "deaths caused by smoking" billboard counters while at a stoplight. Five people died because of smoking inbetween lights.

Serapha wrote:Sorry, you don't get to use that excuse. When I quoted those numbers, it was ONLY the deaths caused by alcohol, read my post again. 40% of auto deaths are caused by alcohol.

Wrong. I did read you post - those 40% are not caused directly by alcohol, but by poor driving caused by alcohol. A subtle but important distinction. Plus, there's the other 60% to consider, caused either by bad luck in a small number of cases, or by driver stupidity generally, largely speeding I expect. Banning alcohol won't have any effect on those numbers - coming down hard on all forms of stupidity on the road (drink-driving and speeding being the main ones) will.

Captain Seafort wrote:...not caused directly by alcohol, but by poor driving caused by alcohol. A subtle but important distinction.

I can't help but feel that you're mincing words here. In the case of that percentage (and, admittedly, ONLY that percentage) the "poor driving" that was caused by aclohol would NOT have been present without the alcohol, and thus saying "caused by alcohol" or "caused by poor driving due to alcohol" are semantically disparate but essentially identical.

Mikey wrote:I can't help but feel that you're mincing words here. In the case of that percentage (and, admittedly, ONLY that percentage) the "poor driving" that was caused by alcohol would NOT have been present without the alcohol, and thus saying "caused by alcohol" or "caused by poor driving due to alcohol" are semantically disparate but essentially identical.

Perhaps, but I feel that too many people are displaying unsafe driving habits (40-50 mph in a 30 zone for example) and justifying it with the fact that they're sober. Certainly, drink-driving should be dealt with harshly, but not at the cost of loosing sight of why it's illegal, or at the cost of dealing with deaths caused by other idiots. I don't give a frak if they're teetotal, or have just drunk a dozen pints - dangerous driving remains dangerous driving.

I couldn't agree with you more. However, that still doesn't justify minimizing the role that alcohol plays in alcohol-related incidents.

Mikey wrote:However, that still doesn't justify minimizing the role that alcohol plays in alcohol-related incidents.

I'm in two minds about that statement. While emphasising the dangers of drink-driving, and dealing harshly with those who drink-drive is important, it's also important to be clear that the objective isn't to punish drink driving for its own sake, but to reduce accidents. Therefore excessive speeding and tired driving (for example) should be dealt with identically to drink-driving, and not as lesser offences as sometimes seems to be the case.

I think the difference between us on this is one of viewpoint rather than of ideology. You're talking about addressing the symptom or end result, while I'm talking about the cause. The result - driving dangerously - is certainly no less dangerous for any given cause, and as such consequences should be comparable in severity. However, the causes vary widely - from insomnia to long work days to intoxication - along with the state and intent of the individual in question; therefore, the consequneces should not be identical, even if equivalent.

Mikey wrote:I think the difference between us on this is one of viewpoint rather than of ideology.

Indeed.

You're talking about addressing the symptom or end result, while I'm talking about the cause. The result - driving dangerously - is certainly no less dangerous for any given cause, and as such consequences should be comparable in severity. However, the causes vary widely - from insomnia to long work days to intoxication - along with the state and intent of the individual in question; therefore, the consequneces should not be identical, even if equivalent.

Why not? Whether it's due to intoxication or exhaustion, attempting to drive a car whilst incapabe of doing so safely displays poor judgement, and endangers other road users. For that reason, such poor judgement should be punished equally.

A bit of background to fatigue-induced accidents

Why not? Because I personally am more inclined to try to treat the disease rather than the symptom. I'm not talking about repeat offenders or suchlike, but I'll give you my own example: two days a week, I work 12 hours per day. I don't necessarily like my job, but I have a family, so I do it. According to the letter of the law regarding fatigued driving, I am technically not allowed to drive both to and from work on those days; however, I certainly don't consider myself a wild maverick outlaw when I'm commuting home; nor have I ever been at fault in an auto accident (due to fatigue or otherwise.) Now, let's say I am stopped by a cop for a routine check - no speeding, reckless driving, or anything. Should I be punished the same for having a long shift at work as if I were driving home after knocking back a fifth of whiskey? Conversely, if we are going to merely look at the result rather than the condition, should I NOT be punished for driving after drinking said whiskey if I avoided an accident by chance?

Mikey wrote:Why not? Because I personally am more inclined to try to treat the disease rather than the symptom.

But how do you define the disease and the symptom? I would say that the symptom is the number of accidents, and people killed in those accidents, and the disease is the people who drive while either drunk or tired (or too fast, but that's a slightly different category).

Should I be punished the same for having a long shift at work as if I were driving home after knocking back a fifth of whiskey?

If you're equally impared due to tiredness as you would have been by being over the drink-drive limit, then yes. You're just as great a danger to other road-users, therefore the penalty should be the same.

Conversely, if we are going to merely look at the result rather than the condition, should I NOT be punished for driving after drinking said whiskey if I avoided an accident by chance?

I'm not looking solely at the result, so much as all the causes that lead to that result. My orginal objection to Serapha's proposed absolute ban on drinking in order to prevent road accidents (which was where this TR-116ing of the thread started) was to the fact that alcohol is not dangerous due to it's effects on health (which was the argument for banning tobacco) but because it impairs judgement. For that reason, everything that imapirs judgement in the same way, such as tiredness, should be subject to the same penalty.

So this is a morality lesson, then, and not actually a pitch to have me clapped in irons merely because my shift goes longer than 8 hours?

Morality lesson? I think I signed up for the wrong class here...

I read about it in a magazine so I looked up the study.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlse ... 50029&ct=1

The bottom line being that Obese people and smokers actually save the health care system money because they keel over sooner instead of lingering on expensively. So presumably a nation of fat smokers would be fiscally the best.

That would probably also solve the social security problem.

Time to go eat some pie.

FOR YOUR COUNTRY

The shape I'm in, I'll probably have assumed room temperature by the time I'm 50...

I'M THE BIGGEST F@$#ING' PATRIOT IN THE WORLD!