DUI Thread

jfgordon1

Well-Known Member
Then they ask you to perform so called tests which are really an interrogation designed to trick you into incriminating yourself.
Like say the alphabet backwards...

Who the hell can do that? :wall:

(actually, my cousin use to be an alcoholic. He would practice all these tests while he was drunk. I've seen him do several of them. He's gotten out of 2 dui's because of it lol. It's pretty amazing )

I'm on Rick's side on this subject. ;-)
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/8332105.stm
Crash children's plea to driver


Mr Bridges bought a house in the Dordogne in 2005

Two children who died in a car crash in France had pleaded with a former policeman not to drive because he had been drinking, an inquest jury heard.
Bethany Lowe and Gabriella Dyer, both 10, said they should drive rather than Bethany's step-father, Keith Bridges.
The girls and two other people from Somerset died in the crash near Berbiguieres, southern France, in 2006.
In a narrative verdict, the jury found it was caused by Mr Bridges driving at excess speed after drinking alcohol.
Mr Bridges was more than double the UK drink-driving limit when the crash occurred, the court in Taunton had been told.
Mr Bridges' wife Julia-Anne, 43, and Gabriella Dyer's father Andrew, 41, died along with the two girls after Mr Bridges' Cherokee Jeep left the road and hit trees on 7 June 2006.
Three other passengers were injured.
Too small
Anthony Fuller, who had hosted a get-together that day attended by the Bridges and Dyer families, told the inquest that Bethany and Gabriella had told him that all the adults had drunk too much to drive.
He said: "They said all the adults had far too much to drink so we will drive."
Gabriella Dyer was the daughter of one of Mrs Bridges' friends

Mr Fuller told the girls they were too small to operate the pedals of the car.
Mr Bridges had been a police inspector in Minehead. He and his family had bought the property in France in 2005.
The Dyer family, from Bridgwater, were staying at the Bridges' farmhouse at the time of the incident.
In a letter read out to the court, Mr Bridges said he thought a mechanical failure had caused the crash.
He said as his Jeep neared his home he "realised that the car was still accelerating hard and not coasting as normal" as he approached a bend.
Manslaughter charges
A French police investigation found no fault in the Cherokee and that it had been travelling nearly 20mph (32km/h) faster than the recommended speed limit for the road it was on.
The two girls were in the boot of the Jeep and were not wearing seat belts, the jury heard.
Mr Fuller said: "There was no need for those children to die because there were four responsible adults in that car and one of them, and this is difficult for me to say, acted very irresponsibly."
The court also heard from Mr Dyer's widow Tracy, who was badly injured in the crash.
Mr Fuller told the inquest that he was "haunted" by the crash scene

She said she did not doubt that Mr Bridges could drive safely that night.
Mr Bridges will appear before a French court next month on manslaughter and drink driving charges.
The jury's statement said: "The accident would not have occurred if the driver of the vehicle had not attempted to negotiate a bend at an excessive speed and his judgment moderately impaired by alcohol.
"The possibility of excessive speed being caused by the failure of the overdrive system was unlikely to have occurred."
"If all the passengers were correctly seated with seat belts fatalities may not have occurred."
After the inquest, Mr Dyer's mother, Mary, said: "We are happy that the truth has now come out and he [Mr Bridges] has to live with it."
If I were to post pictures of people killed by sober drivers would it prove that you shouldn't drive sober? Maybe it would prove that we should get rid of all cars.

Do you know how many children drown in swimming pools every year? It far exceeds those killed by drunk drivers. Should we ban swimming pools?

You people remind me of the slaves that fought for the South during the Civil War.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
All that proves is even sober, cars are a dangerous undertaking. Just one MORE reason to not drive impaired ... ever.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Oh see, now that is just the kind of hyperbolic bullshit the cops hope for.

It's more along the lines of having to explain to your wife that some sadistic dick cop turned a fun day on the lake into a major legal headache that is going to cost you your job and bankrupt your family.

But anyway, why don't you fess up and tell us why it is OK for you to DUI every time you get behind the wheel.
i don't drink and drive. and if i were to and got arrested i wouldn't be here crying about it.

so i guess ALL laws are stupid.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Like say the alphabet backwards...

Who the hell can do that? :wall:

(actually, my cousin use to be an alcoholic. He would practice all these tests while he was drunk. I've seen him do several of them. He's gotten out of 2 dui's because of it lol. It's pretty amazing )

I'm on Rick's side on this subject. ;-)

a sober person wouldn't attempt it. the drunks do.

hello?

or they say something like, ... "i can't do that sober".

i feel i can safely drive 110 miles an hour on the freeway. i have a lot of driving experience and know what i'm doing. who is a cop to tell me otherwise?




:leaf:
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
If I were to post pictures of people killed by sober drivers would it prove that you shouldn't drive sober? Maybe it would prove that we should get rid of all cars.

Do you know how many children drown in swimming pools every year? It far exceeds those killed by drunk drivers. Should we ban swimming pools?

You people remind me of the slaves that fought for the South during the Civil War.
still pathetically ignoring the point here...

sober people causing accidents = cars are dangerous..
drunk driving = inebriated person in charge of dangerous car
fucking simple to see the difference here eh??

how many swiming pools crash into innocent by standers every year??? untill you can pull that statistic out of your arse along with you head dont be giving out weak shit arguments

looks like most people here were born with the fucking brains enough to beable to comprehend the part about drink driving being fucking dangerous. where were you while they were being handed out rick?
 

Woodstock.Hippie

New Member
Fatal Accidents caused by ethanol = 1 ganjajillion

Fatal Accidents caused by cannabis = unknown

Some believe those that defend drunk driving should be forced to ride on an abandoned curvy highway at night and at high speed in the front seat with a drunk behind the wheel while hugging on to a 10" spike Radiant with no seat belt.

If everyone walks away after 4.20 runs, then the drunk can have his license back.

If the drunk dies, so much the better.

Stoners get to pick their own driving speed so long as it meets the State's mandated minimum.
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
Why can people not discuss things honestly?

Here is the first sentence of my opening post:

"We all know how dangerous it is to drive drunk."

As if this need explanation - nobody is saying that it is OK to drive drunk. Do I need to repeat that again?

I have never said otherwise, so why is it that people are trying to misrepresent what I am saying and argue against something I didn't say? Is there a single person among you who can be honest and address what I did say as opposed to what I did not say?

What I did say, is that it is wrong to set a legal limit that allows people who are NOT DRUNK to be prosecuted as if they were. Many people at .08% are far from drunk and can operate a car without any appreciable impairment. Myself and many people I know are among them.

And you all need to stop lying. Damn near everyone who pontificates on the dangers of DUI drives after drinking. They rationalize that they are not "drunk" but merely had a couple drinks and that it is different in their case. Sure they have two glasses of wine at dinner and drive home but that isn't "drunk" that is merely a couple glasses of wine. People who get DUIs are all people who were doing keg stands or pounding shots.

Well, I've got news for you, the couple glasses of wine do count and so do the times that "don't count." Stop lying to yourself and everyone else - if you drink, you have been guilty of DUI. Just because you consider everything you do to be a special exception doesn't make it so.

And stop lying by twisting my words. I am not defending people who get plastered and drive, I am just saying that the legal limit is too low and that the way people are prosecuted makes no sense. It makes no sense to jail a guy who is sleeping off a buzz in the back seat with his engine running for heat. If you think this type of Draconian law enforcement is good for anyone you better think again while you still have your freedom.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
The message is, don't drink & drive. It doesn't mean you should have a few and as long as you don't go over the legal limit because of (metabolism/wight ratios), you're good to go. No, the goal is to have NO drinks before driving.....period. The legal limit allows for an "accidental" drink, but no more. Anything more than one implies intent. It should be punished.
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Oh see, now that is just the kind of hyperbolic bullshit the cops hope for.

It's more along the lines of having to explain to your wife that some sadistic dick cop turned a fun day on the lake into a major legal headache that is going to cost you your job and bankrupt your family.

But anyway, why don't you fess up and tell us why it is OK for you to DUI every time you get behind the wheel.
Why can people not discuss things honestly?

Here is the first sentence of my opening post:

"We all know how dangerous it is to drive drunk."

As if this need explanation - nobody is saying that it is OK to drive drunk. Do I need to repeat that again?

I have never said otherwise, so why is it that people are trying to misrepresent what I am saying and argue against something I didn't say? Is there a single person among you who can be honest and address what I did say as opposed to what I did not say?

What I did say, is that it is wrong to set a legal limit that allows people who are NOT DRUNK to be prosecuted as if they were. Many people at .08% are far from drunk and can operate a car without any appreciable impairment. Myself and many people I know are among them.

And you all need to stop lying. Damn near everyone who pontificates on the dangers of DUI drives after drinking. They rationalize that they are not "drunk" but merely had a couple drinks and that it is different in their case. Sure they have two glasses of wine at dinner and drive home but that isn't "drunk" that is merely a couple glasses of wine. People who get DUIs are all people who were doing keg stands or pounding shots.

Well, I've got news for you, the couple glasses of wine do count and so do the times that "don't count." Stop lying to yourself and everyone else - if you drink, you have been guilty of DUI. Just because you consider everything you do to be a special exception doesn't make it so.

And stop lying by twisting my words. I am not defending people who get plastered and drive, I am just saying that the legal limit is too low and that the way people are prosecuted makes no sense. It makes no sense to jail a guy who is sleeping off a buzz in the back seat with his engine running for heat. If you think this type of Draconian law enforcement is good for anyone you better think again while you still have your freedom.



you've beat yourself at your own argument. :bigjoint: :dunce:
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Why can people not discuss things honestly?

Here is the first sentence of my opening post:

"We all know how dangerous it is to drive drunk."

As if this need explanation - nobody is saying that it is OK to drive drunk. Do I need to repeat that again?

I have never said otherwise, so why is it that people are trying to misrepresent what I am saying and argue against something I didn't say? Is there a single person among you who can be honest and address what I did say as opposed to what I did not say?

What I did say, is that it is wrong to set a legal limit that allows people who are NOT DRUNK to be prosecuted as if they were. Many people at .08% are far from drunk and can operate a car without any appreciable impairment. Myself and many people I know are among them.

And you all need to stop lying. Damn near everyone who pontificates on the dangers of DUI drives after drinking. They rationalize that they are not "drunk" but merely had a couple drinks and that it is different in their case. Sure they have two glasses of wine at dinner and drive home but that isn't "drunk" that is merely a couple glasses of wine. People who get DUIs are all people who were doing keg stands or pounding shots.

Well, I've got news for you, the couple glasses of wine do count and so do the times that "don't count." Stop lying to yourself and everyone else - if you drink, you have been guilty of DUI. Just because you consider everything you do to be a special exception doesn't make it so.

And stop lying by twisting my words. I am not defending people who get plastered and drive, I am just saying that the legal limit is too low and that the way people are prosecuted makes no sense. It makes no sense to jail a guy who is sleeping off a buzz in the back seat with his engine running for heat. If you think this type of Draconian law enforcement is good for anyone you better think again while you still have your freedom.


so what do you suggest? everyone take a drunk limit test when they get their license? :-?

i hear your argument and it does make a little sense. but what more could the lawmakers do? drunk drivers DO kill people so some type of system must be in place.


suggestion here, ... ______________
 

mexiblunt

Well-Known Member
I don't think a guy sleeping off a drunk in his back seat is worthy of jail time. A responsible drinker would not have drove to the event without knowing how to get home, or at least know not to have the car running if said plan was to sleep in car. And if your not out to get drunk.. like dinner with the family teach your kids to turn off the car if the cops come by while your sleeping it off.
I know things happen. Guy could have drove to party and designated driver left him etc.
 

mexiblunt

Well-Known Member
Drunk limit test would not work.. I think you know that :)

Up here people with a few dui's can get a device placed in their car that they have to blow into to start the car and every half hour when it's running. This is for people who really need to drive for work etc. You pay for the device and then you need to bring it in regularly to get it calibrated ect.

Suggestion. Make these devices standard issue for autos?
 

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
So a guy is on his way home from work when he gets a call from his buds to meet for happy hour. The guy meets them, has some calamari and a few beers. Now you guys are suggesting that he leave his car and take a cab home and then take a cab back to his car the following morning even though that particular guy can safely drive home no problem? And if the place is at the end of the block and he gets caught driving his car 1 mile to his house he ought to go to jail and lose his license for 6 months?

If any of you bothered to click the link I provided you can read ideas for more fair laws based on a reasonable approach.

And one other thing. There are more bars along the road than any other business. If nobody leaving these bars is driving why don't we see a cab every 1/4 mile? I have been in bars listening to people just like you guys condemn drinking and driving while they pound their last drink, get out their car keys and stagger toward the door. Evidently drinking and driving is the new masturbation - everyone does it but nobody admits it.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Yes exactly, if you are going to drink, don't drive. Stopping off for a few may not be the best idea. Make better arrangements, it's not difficult.
 

ViRedd

New Member
If someone is driving safely at .08, then why would they be stopped by the police? A person may THINK he/she is driving unimpaired at .08, but how does that person explain the open windows at 3 in the morning when its 40 degrees outside? How does one explain having the high beams on and not dimming them as the cop approached from the other direction? How does one explain the statement: "Honest drunk, I'm not officer!" How does one explain away the statement you made that was recorded in the police report: "When I commented to the suspect that his eyes were red and asked him if he had been drinking, his response to me was: 'Well officer, your eyes are glazed ... have you been eating donuts?'" :lol:
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
So a guy is on his way home from work when he gets a call from his buds to meet for happy hour. The guy meets them, has some calamari and a few beers. Now you guys are suggesting that he leave his car and take a cab home and then take a cab back to his car the following morning even though that particular guy can safely drive home no problem? And if the place is at the end of the block and he gets caught driving his car 1 mile to his house he ought to go to jail and lose his license for 6 months?

If any of you bothered to click the link I provided you can read ideas for more fair laws based on a reasonable approach.

And one other thing. There are more bars along the road than any other business. If nobody leaving these bars is driving why don't we see a cab every 1/4 mile? I have been in bars listening to people just like you guys condemn drinking and driving while they pound their last drink, get out their car keys and stagger toward the door. Evidently drinking and driving is the new masturbation - everyone does it but nobody admits it.



so i saw your point, even agreed a little. then i opened the door for a discussion with you. you chose to reply to the drama instead.


troll. :roll:
 
Top