Pruitt Arrested

[xmuscularghandix]

Good thing it happened before Marbury was signed.  You know the media would run with the story that Marbury's influence already has infected the team.

TP thats a very good call. but i mean its Gabe in his hometown with his college buddies, stupid idea but it happens.

[vjcsmoke]

Pruitt just made himself more expendable.  I'm not sure he'll be with the team much longer if the C's can find any kind of upgrade over him.

[EJPLAYA]

The problem here is that he didn't go in and shoplift, or go 5 over the speed limit, or something minor. He willfully chose to put others lives in danger and those of us who have children in our cars out on the road are expected to just say "No big deal. He didn't kill anyone this time. Everyone is doing it..."

  I think that might be a little melodramatic. I don't know what his BAC was, but there's no evidence that his driving was erratic or that he was not in control of his vehicle when he was driving.

Sorry BBALL TIM, I will wait from now on until drunks kill someone before warning them how serious this is. I'm betting KG doesn't think that is over the top... I will decide however what I think is an action by someone that puts me and my family at risk.

All I can say though is that there is a certain person on here that better hope he never kills someone in a drunk driving accident, because they will link this back to them and they will label it willful negligence and come down a lot harder since they think its funny to "do it all the time".

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

Regarding the whole talking on the cell phone thing versus driving drunk, I have to say I talk on the cell phone all the time while I drive. I have bluetooth in when I'm doing it but I am having a cell phone conversation. The emotional attachment of the cell phone conversation has little to do with the relative danger of driving while using a cell phone. It is the answering manually, manually holding the phone, manually dialing the phone and manually texting on the phone that I believe is the dangerous part. This is why many places have tried to institute handless cell phone conversations as the law.
.....

Yeah, Nick, most people think it's all the manual movement associated with the cell phone that causes the drop in reaction time.  But in the studies they've done, it doesn't matter whether it was hand-held or bluetooth.  The cognitive energy used to carry a conversation is what detracts from one's reaction time, not any physical activity associated with using the phone (though that's a cause too).  The laws that state that it's OK to talk on your cell phone if it's in wireless receive mode are missing the point...  It's a matter of doing more than one thing at a time and humans aren't really meant to multitask as much as the modern world makes it seem we should.

  I'd be inclined to disagree with those studies. They are basically putting talking on a cell phone on par with conversing with someone in the car, which people have been doing since cars were invented. It would also be likely that listening to a car radio would be about 1/2 as distracting as talking on a cell phone.

Salmon is correct - handsfree or not made no discernable difference in impairment.  You can disagree with it but it doesn't change the findings.

Conversing with other people is probably a little impairing, at least relative to being alone, but it isn't the same because cell phones transmit a diluted amount of information relative to a conversation with someone actually present.  Cell phones sound like they're roughly the same as talking in person, but this is because our brains fill in the blanks.  Talking in person conveys much more verbal and non-verbal information, which means it requires less focus to comprehend. Also, conversation usually stops or slows when traffic conditions become trickier, which someone on a cell phone can't determine.

EDIT: Cordobes has a great cite above me on this.

But there is a difference from distractions and impairment. For example, someone driving drunk can also take a phone call. They would then have both the distraction and the impairment.

No, there isn't - anything that distracts you impairs you by definition, as your ability to operate the vehicle safely is reduced.  Your distinction is more between temporary impairment (distraction ie talking) and more persistent impairment (being inebriated)

Cordobes and Fairweatherfan, thanks for providing the links that Nick, Crownsy and BballTim were looking for...  You guys did a real good job explaining the findings as well.  Thanks.

Nick, Crownsy, and BballTim, I assume your questions have been answered.

And as I mentioned before, I only brought up the cell phone angle to give everyone an accurate assessment of the actual harm that Pruitt subjected his fellow drivers to...

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

The definition of drunk driving is consistent throughout the United States. Every state and the District of Columbia defines impairment as driving with a BAC (blood alcohol concentration) at or above 0.08 percent.

Roy, as I stated before, I was imprecise and a little sloppy with my language, stating at one time that drunk driving was driving with a BAC of .08 and at another time stating that drunk driving was driving with a BAC over .08.  But those statements, while being imprecise, were not incorrect, nor false, nor willful ignorance, nor all the other things you accused me of being.  With nearly 20,000 posts to your credit, I'm sure you can empathize with someone who uses imprecise language from time to time, especially on a message board where the rush to say something often outweighs the caution necessary to be completely precise in what one is saying.

As for this business:

Since you've proven that you're not a poster that should be taken seriously, or that understands statistics or scientific studies, I'll ignore you from here on out and allow you to wallow in your chosen ignorance.  It's a waste of my time to try to provide facts to somebody who is either willfully blind or deliberately obtuse. 

Roy, coming from your position of power as Forum Manager, there was no pressing need to bully or personally attack me in this instance, especially considering that I had broken no rules and that we were in basic agreement anyway and you were merely attempting to clarify my remarks.  If you have some personal feelings you'd like to express, feel free to send me a private message.  Otherwise, you should probably keep them to yourself, especially since my status as a mere poster limits my ability to dutifully respond in kind to such remarks.   

[Jon]

Stupid move on his part. 

Aside from the danger of what he did, I'm somewhat glad this happened in the sense that I hope it causes people to jump off the Pruitt bandwagon.  While I don't hate him, it does drive me crazy that people bemoan his lack of minutes and view him as a valuable commodity.  He's a second round pick who has yet to crack the rotation on a team with a weak bench in general, bad guard depth, (and before Marbury signs) no real backup PG.  If he was really that good, he'd be playing more. 

Could he be a backup PG in this league?  Maybe.  But he hasn't proven that yet and he certainly won't be a player we look back on 3 years from now and regret losing. 

[BballTim]

The problem here is that he didn't go in and shoplift, or go 5 over the speed limit, or something minor. He willfully chose to put others lives in danger and those of us who have children in our cars out on the road are expected to just say "No big deal. He didn't kill anyone this time. Everyone is doing it..."

  I think that might be a little melodramatic. I don't know what his BAC was, but there's no evidence that his driving was erratic or that he was not in control of his vehicle when he was driving.

Sorry BBALL TIM, I will wait from now on until drunks kill someone before warning them how serious this is. I'm betting KG doesn't think that is over the top... I will decide however what I think is an action by someone that puts me and my family at risk.

  You could decide that anything puts your family at risk. Other cars on the road, airplanes flying overhead, neighbors with dogs. It's all relative. My point was that the legal limit for acceptable BAC is probably well below a level that would increase your risk by any significant amount. I'm not saying anything resembling "it's ok to drive drunk because there's no danger for any amount of drinking". What if the level of impairment that they're trying to cap "drunk driving" at is equivalent to the increased amount of time it takes to stop or avoid something if you're going 5 mph over the speed limit? You're labeling one as "minor" and the other as "life threatening" even though they may pose the same risk. That's all I'm saying.

All I can say though is that there is a certain person on here that better hope he never kills someone in a drunk driving accident, because they will link this back to them and they will label it willful negligence and come down a lot harder since they think its funny to "do it all the time".

  I'd assuming you're not talking about  me because nothing I said resembled "its funny to "do it all the time"."

[Roy Hobbs]

My point was that the legal limit for acceptable BAC is probably well below a level that would increase your risk by any significant amount.

What is this based upon?

[EJPLAYA]

The problem here is that he didn't go in and shoplift, or go 5 over the speed limit, or something minor. He willfully chose to put others lives in danger and those of us who have children in our cars out on the road are expected to just say "No big deal. He didn't kill anyone this time. Everyone is doing it..."

  I think that might be a little melodramatic. I don't know what his BAC was, but there's no evidence that his driving was erratic or that he was not in control of his vehicle when he was driving.

Sorry BBALL TIM, I will wait from now on until drunks kill someone before warning them how serious this is. I'm betting KG doesn't think that is over the top... I will decide however what I think is an action by someone that puts me and my family at risk.

  You could decide that anything puts your family at risk. Other cars on the road, airplanes flying overhead, neighbors with dogs. It's all relative. My point was that the legal limit for acceptable BAC is probably well below a level that would increase your risk by any significant amount. I'm not saying anything resembling "it's ok to drive drunk because there's no danger for any amount of drinking". What if the level of impairment that they're trying to cap "drunk driving" at is equivalent to the increased amount of time it takes to stop or avoid something if you're going 5 mph over the speed limit? You're labeling one as "minor" and the other as "life threatening" even though they may pose the same risk. That's all I'm saying.

All I can say though is that there is a certain person on here that better hope he never kills someone in a drunk driving accident, because they will link this back to them and they will label it willful negligence and come down a lot harder since they think its funny to "do it all the time".

  I'd assuming you're not talking about  me because nothing I said resembled "its funny to "do it all the time"."

Definitely not talking about you BBALL TIM. If you read the entire thread I think it is pretty clear. Someone on here stated they did it all the time and seemed amused.

As far as the first piece though, there is a big difference in subjecting my family to risks that are in place due to normal legal activity. I wouldn't take my kids for a walk at night in gang central. If I want to avoid dangerous areas then I stay out of places that aren't safe. The difference in this though is drunks are illegally bringing the danger to ME. I don't get a choice. That is like having a group of gang members come and have a fight on my front lawn. I didn't sign up for that, and have every right to be furious that they are putting me at risk in that scenario. We have a big problem in this country with people not understanding what their "rights" are. A person's rights stop when they start taking away the rights of others. When those choices put someone's life in danger, one of the most fundamental rights, then no amount of anger at their selfishness is unjustified.

[BballTim]

My point was that the legal limit for acceptable BAC is probably well below a level that would increase your risk by any significant amount.

What is this based upon?

  Just my personal feelings and my opinion of how I feel when I decide that it's not worth the risk to drive. I make that decision based strictly on the amount of alcohol I've had and the amount of time involved. It's not a case of "I can't drive or walk or talk or do anything else well", it's a case of "if I drive like I normally do and get pulled over for something silly like speeding by 5-10 mph or not coming to a full and complete stop like I could on any day that I don't drink I'll lose my license".

  Honestly, there's no accurate or measurable science behind this. Breathalizers aren't always accurate and alcohol affects different people differently. I doubt there's any set level of impairment that they're trying to outlaw. A lot of it's just political.

  Also, just by common sense, it's extremely unlikely that people making laws against drunk driving would decide something like "a BAC of 0.09 would pose a significant risk, so we'll set the limit at 0.085". I'll guarantee that they built in a decent amount of margin.

[Sweet17]

People's reflexes are impaired after just one drink. Not even high functioning alcholics are immune to this..

[BballTim]

People's reflexes are impaired after just one drink. Not even high functioning alcholics are immune to this..

  But to what degree? And, more importantly, how many activities that reduce a person's reaction time by an amount that's greater than that are perfectly legal? What if you're sick, tired, distracted, old, inexperienced, or have less than perfect vision? What if you're driving in the snow, rain, in bright sunlight or after dark? What if you're going 5 mph over the speed limit? I just don't see the logic behind people who rail against slightly impaired drivers  who "put their family's lives in danger" but don't give a second's thought to the hundreds of people that are on the road with them that put their family at as much or more risk for other reasons.

[EJPLAYA]

People's reflexes are impaired after just one drink. Not even high functioning alcholics are immune to this..

  But to what degree? And, more importantly, how many activities that reduce a person's reaction time by an amount that's greater than that are perfectly legal? What if you're sick, tired, distracted, old, inexperienced, or have less than perfect vision? What if you're driving in the snow, rain, in bright sunlight or after dark? What if you're going 5 mph over the speed limit? I just don't see the logic behind people who rail against slightly impaired drivers  who "put their family's lives in danger" but don't give a second's thought to the hundreds of people that are on the road with them that put their family at as much or more risk for other reasons.

I think discussing this further with you is pointless if you don't see the difference between someone selfishly breaking the law by intentionally putting themselves behind the wheel while intoxicated and someone going 5 over, or being old etc...

Here's a little story I wish I could find the original on that I think says what many are thinking.

A man is hiring for a position as a truck driver and conducting interviews. He tells the candidates that the job will require him to navigate through some pretty treacherous mountain roads that are very narrow with very steep dropoffs and would like to know how close he can get to the edge based on his skill. The first guy says that he is so good that he can put that outside wheel within 6-8 inches of that edge and hold it there the entire time without any problem at all. The second guy says that he can have half his tire hanging off the edge and keep in perfect control. The third guy says that he would stay as far away from that edge as he possibly could at all times so as not to come near that edge. Guess who got that job?!

Drunk drivers think they can hug that edge, but they really are just an accident waiting to happen. Unfortunately usually the lives that are lost though are innocent children and parents. Excuse us for wanting these people to be extra cautious with our kids. I'll promise you one thing. Some drunk driver kills my child just to not be inconvenienced or pay cab fare and he better watch his back. Ever see "A Time to Kill"? Loved Carl Lee Hailey...

[BballTim]

People's reflexes are impaired after just one drink. Not even high functioning alcholics are immune to this..

  But to what degree? And, more importantly, how many activities that reduce a person's reaction time by an amount that's greater than that are perfectly legal? What if you're sick, tired, distracted, old, inexperienced, or have less than perfect vision? What if you're driving in the snow, rain, in bright sunlight or after dark? What if you're going 5 mph over the speed limit? I just don't see the logic behind people who rail against slightly impaired drivers  who "put their family's lives in danger" but don't give a second's thought to the hundreds of people that are on the road with them that put their family at as much or more risk for other reasons.

I think discussing this further with you is pointless if you don't see the difference between someone selfishly breaking the law by intentionally putting themselves behind the wheel while intoxicated and someone going 5 over, or being old etc...

Here's a little story I wish I could find the original on that I think says what many are thinking.

A man is hiring for a position as a truck driver and conducting interviews. He tells the candidates that the job will require him to navigate through some pretty treacherous mountain roads that are very narrow with very steep dropoffs and would like to know how close he can get to the edge based on his skill. The first guy says that he is so good that he can put that outside wheel within 6-8 inches of that edge and hold it there the entire time without any problem at all. The second guy says that he can have half his tire hanging off the edge and keep in perfect control. The third guy says that he would stay as far away from that edge as he possibly could at all times so as not to come near that edge. Guess who got that job?!

Drunk drivers think they can hug that edge, but they really are just an accident waiting to happen. Unfortunately usually the lives that are lost though are innocent children and parents. Excuse us for wanting these people to be extra cautious with our kids. I'll promise you one thing. Some drunk driver kills my child just to not be inconvenienced or pay cab fare and he better watch his back. Ever see "A Time to Kill"? Loved Carl Lee Hailey...

  So if some 85 year old kills your kid, you'll be less upset? You won't feel that the person getting behind the wheel when they were too old to react properly made a selfish decision? I don't understand that way of thinking. I'm not sure how much better I'd feel if one of my kids was killed by someone who had been driving a truck for 18 hours and lost control than if it was a drunk driver.

[EJPLAYA]

People's reflexes are impaired after just one drink. Not even high functioning alcholics are immune to this..

  But to what degree? And, more importantly, how many activities that reduce a person's reaction time by an amount that's greater than that are perfectly legal? What if you're sick, tired, distracted, old, inexperienced, or have less than perfect vision? What if you're driving in the snow, rain, in bright sunlight or after dark? What if you're going 5 mph over the speed limit? I just don't see the logic behind people who rail against slightly impaired drivers  who "put their family's lives in danger" but don't give a second's thought to the hundreds of people that are on the road with them that put their family at as much or more risk for other reasons.

I think discussing this further with you is pointless if you don't see the difference between someone selfishly breaking the law by intentionally putting themselves behind the wheel while intoxicated and someone going 5 over, or being old etc...

Here's a little story I wish I could find the original on that I think says what many are thinking.

A man is hiring for a position as a truck driver and conducting interviews. He tells the candidates that the job will require him to navigate through some pretty treacherous mountain roads that are very narrow with very steep dropoffs and would like to know how close he can get to the edge based on his skill. The first guy says that he is so good that he can put that outside wheel within 6-8 inches of that edge and hold it there the entire time without any problem at all. The second guy says that he can have half his tire hanging off the edge and keep in perfect control. The third guy says that he would stay as far away from that edge as he possibly could at all times so as not to come near that edge. Guess who got that job?!

Drunk drivers think they can hug that edge, but they really are just an accident waiting to happen. Unfortunately usually the lives that are lost though are innocent children and parents. Excuse us for wanting these people to be extra cautious with our kids. I'll promise you one thing. Some drunk driver kills my child just to not be inconvenienced or pay cab fare and he better watch his back. Ever see "A Time to Kill"? Loved Carl Lee Hailey...

  So if some 85 year old kills your kid, you'll be less upset? You won't feel that the person getting behind the wheel when they were too old to react properly made a selfish decision? I don't understand that way of thinking. I'm not sure how much better I'd feel if one of my kids was killed by someone who had been driving a truck for 18 hours and lost control than if it was a drunk driver.

Yes I will be less upset because the person wasn't breaking the law. They weren't intentionally doing something that they knew had a very high probability of resulting in an accident and likely a deadly one. Intent is a very big difference and you know it. Even if you don't want to admit it...