Have you driven drunk? Answer honestly...

[Roy Hobbs]

...If I was given a choice of being on the interstate with a bunch of people with a .12 BAC, or a bunch of people on cell phones, I'll take the drunk people.

Do you have any studies on the risks associated with people driving at .12 (i.e., 50% above the legal limit)?  If cell phone use has been equated to driving at a BAC of .08 (as argued above), why would you feel safer being surrounded by a bunch of a people 50% more inebriated? 

Driving while intoxicated does two things:  it slows people's judgments down, *and* it leads to poor decisions.  People seem to be fixated on the reaction time analysis -- which equates with cell phones -- and seem to be ignoring the fact that alcohol impairs judgment, as well.

[ChampKind]

Always someone willing to defend the criminals... Sad.

Thank god someone here was able to equate strong evidence behind the detrimental effects of using a cell phone while driving to defending drunk drivers.  I thought I was the only one who saw this and thought "you know, this strong evidence supporting a tangential argument just reeks of someone justifying DWIs."  I am glad that someone had more balls than I did to call this poster out for presenting a relevant case that in no way said anything about drunk driving.  Clearly by suggesting that cell phones present a driving hazard, freshinthehouse was defending the Zach Randolphs of the world, trying to create an environment where they are safe to cruise down the interstate with an open bottle of Patron on the passenger seat, taking pulls every few miles.

EJ, I salute your observatory skills.  TP for you and for busting up that powerful drunk driving lobby that has become so powerful here at CB.

[EJPLAYA]

Always someone willing to defend the criminals... Sad.

Great response.  Do you have to get off your high horse to post on CB, or do you use wireless?

Hold on a second. I am driving with my knees trying to respond with my Blackberry in rush hour traffic...

I didn't say that driving while on a cell or any type of distracted situation was good. I just find it awfully low to downgrade this families loss with a post sounding like "That's not such a big deal. Cell phone drivers are so much worse". You don't have to detract from the huge selfish problem that drunk driving is by throwing out something different. You may not have intended to, but you made it sound like driving drunk wasn't a big deal. I'd say Stallworth has a different opinion right now. He is about to lose his freedom, a whole lot of money, and his career in the process. The dead guys family would also agree. If you want to start a topic about cell phone driving then great. It needs to be addressed as well. Just not as a "one up" on driving drunk.

[EJPLAYA]

as for the cell phone stuff. do they actually have data showing people having been on cell phones while in an accident? it seems to me that most people wouldn't admit to being on a phone.

Here are a couple of links about the effects of driving while on a cell phone, and what some state governments are doing about it:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-03-29-driving-distracted-cellphones_N.htm

I've got a friend that works in the car insurance biz, and he figures within 5 years talking on a cell phone is going to be driving violation in every state.  They are already getting briefed on how it will change driver liability in an accident.

I know for me, the closest calls I've ever had behind the wheel where when I was using a cell phone.  Anything that takes your mind off of driving when you're behind the wheel is incredibly dangerous.  Granted, I haven't been blackout drunk behind the wheel since I was a kid.  That is a different story completely.  But if I was given a choice of being on the interstate with a bunch of people with a .12 BAC, or a bunch of people on cell phones, I'll take the drunk people.

Always someone willing to defend the criminals... Sad.

  Why is that defending criminals? If I said that armed robbery was worse than stealing cars I don't think I'd consider myself to be defending car thieves. There's nothing wrong with adding a little perspective to a subject.

No, but if I were discussing how I just lost a family member to drunk driving and you said something like "That's not such a big deal. XXXXXX is so much worse than drunk driving" you'd sound as much like a heel as he did.

[freshinthehouse]

Do you have any studies on the risks associated with people driving at .12 (i.e., 50% above the legal limit)?  If cell phone use has been equated to driving at a BAC of .08 (as argued above), why would you feel safer being surrounded by a bunch of a people 50% more inebriated? 

Oh no, this is just from personal experience.  I've been breathalyzed a couple of times (used to party at a house that had a breathalyzer), and each time I was at .12, so since I know how drunk i was at .12, I am using that as a barometer.

I've been reading more stuff online about laws in the works to make driving while on a phone a crime.  It looks like it is going to be more "when" than "if" for most states.  Will the same people being indignant to drunk drivers (which I have no problem with) do the same to people who admit that they talk on the phone while driving?

[Roy Hobbs]

Will the same people being indignant to drunk drivers (which I have no problem with) do the same to people who admit that they talk on the phone while driving?

My guess would be that if several thousand deaths each year were linked to cell phone use, then yes.  For all of the laboratory studies in a controlled environment done regarding reaction times while talking on a cell phone, to my knowledge there are no statistics showing the impact of cell phone use in real-life situations.  If those statistics are published and show extremely high death totals, I believe you'll see similar outrage.

I think you're underestimating impairment at .12, by the way, especially if you're basing your assessment on your own self-awareness.  The crazy thing about being impaired is that often, you don't realize how impaired you are. 

We just saw the real-world effects of driving at a .12:  on a clear roadway, a driver decided that it was a better idea to flash his lights at a guy crossing the road than it was to hit his brakes or to take defensive action to avoid hitting the pedestrian.  If that wasn't impaired decision-making, I don't know what is.

[freshinthehouse]

Hold on a second. I am driving with my knees trying to respond with my Blackberry in rush hour traffic...

I didn't say that driving while on a cell or any type of distracted situation was good. I just find it awfully low to downgrade this families loss with a post sounding like "That's not such a big deal. Cell phone drivers are so much worse". You don't have to detract from the huge selfish problem that drunk driving is by throwing out something different. You may not have intended to, but you made it sound like driving drunk wasn't a big deal. I'd say Stallworth has a different opinion right now. He is about to lose his freedom, a whole lot of money, and his career in the process. The dead guys family would also agree. If you want to start a topic about cell phone driving then great. It needs to be addressed as well. Just not as a "one up" on driving drunk.

With that kind of reading comprehension, I could say you're downplaying the kind of damage someone can do by getting into an accident because they were talking on a cellphone.  "Bummer that you're car was t-boned by someone texting.  But hey, at least they weren't drunk!"  And a comment like "Hold on a sec.  I am driving with my knees . . ." is making light of driving while distracted.  You're talking about something that is going to be a crime very soon.  

[SSFan V]

I am amazed with the "legs" of this thread.

[freshinthehouse]

My guess would be that if several thousand deaths each year were linked to cell phone use, then yes.  For all of the laboratory studies in a controlled environment done regarding reaction times while talking on a cell phone, to my knowledge there are no statistics showing the impact of cell phone use in real-life situations.  If those statistics are published and show extremely high death totals, I believe you'll see similar outrage.

The trouble with linking cell phone use to accidents is that it's easy to deny.  My friend in the insurance biz says that it comes up a lot, but it usually ends up being a case of where it's one person's word against another.  

But for the government to decide that it is a big enough menace to outlaw, you know that there must be something behind it.  

And you are right, I may not know how much a .12 BAC effects my motor skills.  But I think it would be fair to say that most people don't realize how much their reaction time is effected by talking on a cell phone.

[fairweatherfan]

...If I was given a choice of being on the interstate with a bunch of people with a .12 BAC, or a bunch of people on cell phones, I'll take the drunk people.

Do you have any studies on the risks associated with people driving at .12 (i.e., 50% above the legal limit)?  If cell phone use has been equated to driving at a BAC of .08 (as argued above), why would you feel safer being surrounded by a bunch of a people 50% more inebriated? 

Driving while intoxicated does two things:  it slows people's judgments down, *and* it leads to poor decisions.  People seem to be fixated on the reaction time analysis -- which equates with cell phones -- and seem to be ignoring the fact that alcohol impairs judgment, as well.

To be fair, it's difficult to assess "judgment" in an empirical manner, as it's kind of abstract and subjective.  As the man Rumsfeld said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - just because no one's clearly established that cell phone use impairs judgment does not mean we must assume they do not.  In fact, I'd argue that given the interconnectedness of symptoms in alcohol impairment, and the similarity in reaction time impairment b/w cell phone users and .08s, it would probably be more reasonable to assume similar effects on judgment too.

Of course, the major difference is still that cell phone impairment can be turned on and off, and alcohol cannot.

[BballTim]

...If I was given a choice of being on the interstate with a bunch of people with a .12 BAC, or a bunch of people on cell phones, I'll take the drunk people.

Do you have any studies on the risks associated with people driving at .12 (i.e., 50% above the legal limit)?  If cell phone use has been equated to driving at a BAC of .08 (as argued above), why would you feel safer being surrounded by a bunch of a people 50% more inebriated? 

Driving while intoxicated does two things:  it slows people's judgments down, *and* it leads to poor decisions.  People seem to be fixated on the reaction time analysis -- which equates with cell phones -- and seem to be ignoring the fact that alcohol impairs judgment, as well.

  Part of the problem is that it's such a nebulous topic. Without a breathalizer nobody  knows when they're at .12, so it's hard to have a debate about how impaired you are at .12. It's a certain number of drinks in a certain period of time (which varies by the person), but how much you generally drink or how tired you are or how much (and what) you have to eat can all affect how impaired you are after that same number of drinks.

[jdpapa3]

Does anyone else feel that their personality fits in with how they drive past the limit? I was probably > .12 at one time and came nowhere close to driving over the speed limit. I am more aware about speed limits and the road overall than when I am sober.

The system they have in place now is pretty good. The number is probably pretty good too. I just know some people that would be worse drivers at .02 than others would be at .12. That being said, Stallworth should get a few years behind bars. He drove reckless while being over the limit.

[dark_lord]

people are still seriously justifying drinking and driving...wow! 

[freshinthehouse]

Does anyone else feel that their personality fits in with how they drive past the limit? I was probably > .12 at one time and came nowhere close to driving over the speed limit. I am more aware about speed limits and the road overall than when I am sober.

The system they have in place now is pretty good. The number is probably pretty good too. I just know some people that would be worse drivers at .02 than others would be at .12. That being said, Stallworth should get a few years behind bars. He drove reckless while being over the limit.

One thing that boggles my mind is people that demand to drive the drunker they get.  I've known a couple of guys over the years that you would have to physically restrain from driving once they started getting really drunk drunk.  Last I heard, one of them still hadn't gotten a DUI, which is incredible.  His guardian angel has to be pulling in serious overtime.

But back to the post, I do think that a person's personality effects their chances of getting in a wreck, drunk or not.  If you're the kind of person that speeds, loses concentration, and drives irresponsibly when you're sober, I'm sure that those same actions will come out when you're drunk.

[davemonsterband]

I am amazed with the "legs" of this thread.

TP for saying what I'm thinking. I don't get the discussion value, nobody should drink and drive, if they do they're being irresponsible and breaking the law, tyvm. I'm out!