Pruitt Arrested

[Roy Hobbs]

So, everybody out there who's ever talked on a cell phone while driving has put his or her fellow drivers at as much risk as Gabe did while allegedly driving drunk. 

That's a pretty ignorant and inaccurate statement, without knowing the level of impairment.

Well, your statement is also a pretty ignorant and inaccurate without knowing the particulars of the cell phone conversation.  

The point is: talking on your cell phone while driving is as dangerous as driving intoxicated.  While we roast Gabe for his mistake, it's good to remember that the level of potential harm he brought about while allegedly driving drunk is EQUIVALENT to something that most people do ALL THE TIME.  

No.  Your statements are inaccurate.  Some studies have shown that talking on your cell phone impairs driving to a similar degree as does having a BAC of 0.8.

However, that's very difference than saying "talking on the cell phone = driving drunk".  There are many, many drunk drivers who operate vehicles at a BAC significantly above 0.8.  People should put the cell phones down, too, but your statements are falsified to fit your agenda.

[BballTim]

So, everybody out there who's ever talked on a cell phone while driving has put his or her fellow drivers at as much risk as Gabe did while allegedly driving drunk. 

That's a pretty ignorant and inaccurate statement, without knowing the level of impairment.

Well, your statement is also a pretty ignorant and inaccurate without knowing the particulars of the cell phone conversation.  

The point is: talking on your cell phone while driving is as dangerous as driving intoxicated.  While we roast Gabe for his mistake, it's good to remember that the level of potential harm he brought about while allegedly driving drunk is EQUIVALENT to something that most people do ALL THE TIME.  

No.  Your statements are inaccurate.  Some studies have shown that talking on your cell phone impairs driving to a similar degree as does having a BAC of 0.8.

However, that's very difference than saying "talking on the cell phone = driving drunk".  There are many, many drunk drivers who operate vehicles at a BAC significantly above 0.8.  People should put the cell phones down, too, but your statements are falsified to fit your agenda.

  Funny aside, but every time I eat or drink or answer my phone while I'm driving, my son (who apparently watches insurance commercials) pipes in with "you've just double your chances of getting into an accident, dad".

[fairweatherfan]

  Funny aside, but every time I eat or drink or answer my phone while I'm driving, my son (who apparently watches insurance commercials) pipes in with "you've just double your chances of getting into an accident, dad".

My girlfriend does that sometimes, but I usually just tell her to shut up and finish mixing my Jack and Ginger 

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

Let me give you an analogy here to make my point:  the degree to which an intoxicated person's reaction time is slowed down by alcohol is EQUIVALENT to the degree to which a non-intoxicated person's reaction time is slowed down....when they're talking on a cell phone (hand-held or wireless).  So, everybody out there who's ever talked on a cell phone while driving has put his or her fellow drivers at as much risk as Gabe did while allegedly driving drunk.  So, it terms of potential harm caused, I think we all should take a step down from our high horses and stop making these black-and-white declarations of good and evil and realize that life is made up of infinite shades of grey.  Gabe made a mistake.  And so has everyone at Celticsblog.  Get over it.

I've cited this study myself in response to what I saw as some overreaction on the earlier DWI thread, but there's two key differences: it's equal only at the lowest levels of illegal impairment, and you can turn a cell phone off.  It's true that DWI for whatever reason brings out the Puritan in a lot of people that just shrug at other things that equally impair drivers, but it's still a mistake to do it.  I've been in enough near-accidents with people yapping on their cells (I shut my cell off while driving) to know that if drunk people are at least that impaired, it's not a good idea to drive in that state.  

And I see more people criticizing folks for "crucifying" Gabe than I actually see doing it.  Most people, including me, are just saying it's a stupid move, which it is, that's easily avoidable for a rich athlete, which it is, but very few are going any further than that.

I was just trying to accurately define the level of potential harm caused by driving intoxicated, as it seems that most in this thread have an either over- or under-exaggerated impression of that harm.  It was definitely a stupid move, no argument here...

As for those studies, they've only tested on subjects at the legal limit, and have only involved cell phone conversations operating at the mundane level.  I'm sure a pretty heated conversation lowers one's reaction time, just like intoxication above the legal threshold also lowers one's reaction time.  Further, reaction time varies from person to person, even with nothing in their system and no phones in the car.  Alcohol also affects people's reaction times differently as well.  We can't test every different combination of intoxication or involvement in a cell phone conversation, but what we can do is state that driving impaired is akin to diving while talking on the cell phone.  So, in terms of potential harm threatened to others in the operation of a vehicle, pretty much everyone has done something equivalent to what Gabe did....  And at that level of ordinariness, the cries of outrage ring hollow.

[KungPoweChicken]

In 2004, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program
estimated that over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. This is an arrest rate of 1 for every 139 licensed
drivers in the United States.


And I pity anyone who thinks getting arrested for a DUI is about anything more than money. Sure, a person could learn a lesson, but the majority of intent on behalf of the law in cases like this is taking away a person's money.

[fairweatherfan]

I was just trying to accurately define the level of potential harm caused by driving intoxicated, as it seems that most in this thread have an either over- or under-exaggerated impression of that harm.  It was definitely a stupid move, no argument here...

As for those studies, they've only tested on subjects at the legal limit, and have only involved cell phone conversations operating at the mundane level.  I'm sure a pretty heated conversation lowers one's reaction time, just like intoxication above the legal threshold also lowers one's reaction time.  Further, reaction time varies from person to person, even with nothing in their system and no phones in the car.  Alcohol also affects people's reaction times differently as well.  We can't test every different combination of intoxication or involvement in a cell phone conversation, but what we can do is state that driving impaired is akin to diving while talking on the cell phone.  So, in terms of potential harm threatened to others in the operation of a vehicle, pretty much everyone has done something equivalent to what Gabe did....  And at that level of ordinariness, the cries of outrage ring hollow.

I see what you're saying, and we're mostly in agreement - I think impairment should be the key thing the law goes after, not just drinking, and there are many things that can cause impairment, including individual differences.  But one of the most consistent and irreversible (in the short-run) causes of impairment is drinking. 

And you're still making too broad of a comparison - talking on a cell is equivalent to a .08 BAC, we know that (or should).  More involved conversation may be equivalent to a higher level of alcohol-based impairment, but we don't know that yet.  And it's almost certain that no cell phone conversation is equal to being flat-out drunk behind the wheel (which may or may not be the case with Gabe).  That's what people are criticizing - you are coming across as taking an established but very specific point of comparison (.08) and generalizing it to a very broad range of impairment (.09-.30 or whatever the upper limit could be).  Whether you mean that or not is one thing but that's how it comes across.

[Chris]

In 2004, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program
estimated that over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. This is an arrest rate of 1 for every 139 licensed
drivers in the United States.


And I pity anyone who thinks getting arrested for a DUI is about anything more than money. Sure, a person could learn a lesson, but the only intent on behalf of the law in cases like this is taking away a person's money.

You mean you don't think it is about trying to make the streets safer?

Yeah, money is made on fines, which is used to pay for the cops...which are needed to enforce the laws to make the streets safer.

[BballTim]

  Funny aside, but every time I eat or drink or answer my phone while I'm driving, my son (who apparently watches insurance commercials) pipes in with "you've just double your chances of getting into an accident, dad".

My girlfriend does that sometimes, but I usually just tell her to shut up and finish mixing my Jack and Ginger 

  Drinking and driving's one thing, but come on. Mixing drinks while driving seems a little irresponsible.

[fairweatherfan]

  Funny aside, but every time I eat or drink or answer my phone while I'm driving, my son (who apparently watches insurance commercials) pipes in with "you've just double your chances of getting into an accident, dad".

My girlfriend does that sometimes, but I usually just tell her to shut up and finish mixing my Jack and Ginger 

  Drinking and driving's one thing, but come on. Mixing drinks while driving seems a little irresponsible.

That's why I have her do it - she won't work the blender anymore since the county put those speed bumps in, though.

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

So, everybody out there who's ever talked on a cell phone while driving has put his or her fellow drivers at as much risk as Gabe did while allegedly driving drunk. 

That's a pretty ignorant and inaccurate statement, without knowing the level of impairment.

Well, your statement is also a pretty ignorant and inaccurate without knowing the particulars of the cell phone conversation.  

The point is: talking on your cell phone while driving is as dangerous as driving intoxicated.  While we roast Gabe for his mistake, it's good to remember that the level of potential harm he brought about while allegedly driving drunk is EQUIVALENT to something that most people do ALL THE TIME.  

No.  Your statements are inaccurate.  Some studies have shown that talking on your cell phone impairs driving to a similar degree as does having a BAC of 0.8.

However, that's very difference than saying "talking on the cell phone = driving drunk".  There are many, many drunk drivers who operate vehicles at a BAC significantly above 0.8.  People should put the cell phones down, too, but your statements are falsified to fit your agenda.

Talk about fitting something to your agenda, Roy.  My statements are not 'inaccurate,' nor 'ignorant,' nor 'falsified to fit [my] agenda.'  They're perfectly and strictly accurate; I think what you meant to say was that my statement was 'imprecise,' since I did not speak to every state of drunkenness, only the imprecise term of 'driving drunk'. 

Just to prove it to you, let me break it down, logic-like:

'talking on your cell phone = driving drunk'

'driving drunk = operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level above .08'

So, strictly speaking, since driving drunk is defined as having a BAC-level of .08 while operating a vehicle, and studies show talking on a cell phone while driving causes the same loss of reaction time as someone with a BAC-level of .08 (i.e., someone who is legally drunk), then someone talking on their cell phone while driving has a lessening of reaction time equivalent to someone driving drunk.

Of course, how drunk you are will affect your reaction time, just like how emotionally invested in the cell phone conversation will affect your reaction time.  But, as a general rule, talking on your cell phone = driving drunk, since driving drunk is legally defined as a blood alcohol level above .08. 

Is there any reason you simply didn't clarify my imprecise language, instead of attacking it as 'ignorant,' 'inaccurate,' and 'falsified to fit [my] agenda'?  Seems like as Forum Manager, it might be better to clarify than attack...

[Roy Hobbs]

So, strictly speaking, since driving drunk is defined as having a BAC-level of .08 while operating a vehicle, and studies show talking on a cell phone while driving causes the same loss of reaction time as someone with a BAC-level of .08 (i.e., someone who is legally drunk), then someone talking on their cell phone while driving has a lessening of reaction time equivalent to someone driving drunk.

Of course, how drunk you are will affect your reaction time, just like how emotionally invested in the cell phone conversation will affect your reaction time.  But, as a general rule, talking on your cell phone = driving drunk, since driving drunk is legally defined as a blood alcohol level above .08.

No, that's not true.  The definition of driving drunk is not "having a BAC-level of .08 while operating a vehicle", strictly speaking.  That's one very narrow example of impaired driving, but it's not the definition.  You know that, but you're twisting facts to fit your agenda.

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. 

[jdpapa3]

Since you've proven that you're not a poster that should be taken seriously, or that understands statistics or scientific studies,

Wow, that sounds like a personal attack.

[Roy Hobbs]

Since you've proven that you're not a poster that should be taken seriously, or that understands statistics or scientific studies,

Wow, that sounds like a personal attack.

To each their own.  I'll be sure not to post on the board you moderate.

[Andy Jick]

i guess some feel as long as pruitt wears a celtics jersey it's okay and easily forgivable...

...but our neighbor who works part-time at mcdonald's does this and we want him locked up because he could be a tragedy waiting to happen.

love the double-standard that athletes get...

The hypocrisy on this board is astounding. Statistics tell us that a good portion of adults have driven drunk in their lives. So where are all these people on celticsblog? Apparently everyone here is a saint who has never operated an auto mobile over the legal limit. Everyone is quick to throw someone under a bus. However, if you were in Gabe's situation you probably would have done the same thing. Statistics tell us that this is the truth. It is easy to sit at a distance and criticize someone for some wrong they have done. Any fool can criticize and most fools do.  

no, i wouldn't have, but thanks for the insinuation...

so gabe drives drunk, but i get labeled the fool...

[nickagneta]

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.

The only accident I have gotten in since cell phone became prevalent was with a woman who was speeding in a parking garage while talking on the phone. As I was backing out she turned the corner and hit me. Her insurance company tried to claim it was my fault because I should have been more aware pulling out and wasn't going to pay. When my lawyer friend threatened to take it to court and threatened to subpeona her cell phone records to prove she was on a cell phone call and not paying attention to what she was doing(she originally said she wasn't on the phone but my son saw her put it away quickly before I could get out of the car), the lady came up with my deductable.