So I Got Done For Speeding...

[Druckles]

For you, maybe, but I'm sure there are people out there off their faces below 0.08.

 

[Krynn72]

I think the difference between .08 and .1 is insignificant when determining whether or not I think you're an idiot for endangering people's lives. If you don't wait until you're unimpaired before driving, you will get no sympathy from me.

 

[No Limit]

I think the difference between .08 and .1 is insignificant when determining whether or not I think you're an idiot for endangering people's lives. If you don't wait until you're unimpaired before driving, you will get no sympathy from me.

Are people that drive 10 MPH over the speed limit idiots? How about those people that some times try to beat a yellow light?

You wanna lock them up too?

For you, maybe, but I'm sure there are people out there off their faces below 0.8.

I have never in my life met anyone "off their faces" at .08. I have met people that were probably at .08 after one beer, but they were not ****ed up until they drank a couple more. For me I probably need 3 beers to just go over .08.

 

[The Monkey]

You're just making ****ing excuses to yourself to get away with drunk driving. The fact is that most people are somehow impaired at 0.2, let alone 0.8.

 

[kazsymonds]

I would never have more than one beer and then drive. I couldn't live with myself if something happened.

Also, if i've had JUST two drinks, I can feel the difference in my body. I'm not intoxicated, but there is a slight difference. I'd be a complete twat to drive like that, what right do I have to endanger others?

 

[No Limit]

You're just making ****ing excuses to yourself to get away with drunk driving. The fact is that most people are somehow impaired at 0.2, let alone 0.8.

What excuses am I making? Yes, you are somwhat impaired at .02 and .08. You are not drunk. Speeding is far more dangerous to people on the road than people at .08. So should we take speeders to jail too?

I would never have more than one beer and then drive. I couldn't live with myself if something happened.

Also, if i've had JUST two drinks, I can feel the difference in my body. I'm not intoxicated, but there is a slight difference. I'd be a complete twat to drive like that, what right do I have to endanger others?

Do you ever speed? Because if you do according to you that would make you a complete twat.

 

[Minister]

My friends dad is a traffic cop. He says that generally speaking, the telltale sign that somebody is borderline to the limit is slow driving. It's because if you know you've had a couple of drinks you concentrate even more than if you hadn't. I myself tend to drive slower and double check more often when I've had a beer.

Obviously this doesn't apply for every case and only when people are strictly borderline.

Just think that those of you demonising No Limit for driving after two beers need to stop being so self-righteous.

 

[The Monkey]

What excuses am I making? Yes, you are somwhat impaired at .02 and .08. You are not drunk. Speeding is far more dangerous to people on the road than people at .08.

Bullshit. The risk of death in traffic is 13 times greater with 0.5‰ alcohol in your blood compared with when you're sober (and 100 times if you for 1.0‰). I got that from a theory book I used when I was getting my licence, so I'm afraid I got no internet source.

So should we take speeders to jail too?

"We" do that already, if the speed violation is large enough.

 

[No Limit]

Bullshit. The risk of death in traffic is 13 times greater with 0.5‰ alcohol in your blood compared with when you're sober (and 100 times if you for 1.0‰). I got that from a theory book I used when I was getting my licence, so I'm afraid I got no internet source.

"We" do that already, if the speed violation is large enough.

The numbers Krynn posted earlier from an actual source disagreed with your theory book.

How large does the speed violation have to be? 20 over I would wager is far more dangerous than .08% BAC. Should those people be taken to jail, asked to post $10,000 bail, and have a speed limiter installed in their car?

 

[kazsymonds]

The numbers Krynn posted earlier from an actual source disagreed with your theory book.

How large does the speed violation have to be? 20 over I would wager is far more dangerous than .08% BAC. Should those people be taken to jail, asked to post $10,000 bail, and have a speed limiter installed in their car?

The German autobahns have no speed limit, and they are no more dangerous than the rest of europe's roads. People literally do 200mph down them, with people in the other lane doing 80mph.

If you think speeding is more dangerous than drink driving, you've had one too many.

 

[No Limit]

So speeding is not dangerous at all?

Holy shit, the hypocrisy is mind blowing. And for **** sake, stop saying drunk driving. I never met anyone that was drunk at .08.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Actually, he said "drink driving" which is driving after you've had a drink.

 

[No Limit]

I didn't know "drink driving" was a real phrase, I assumed it was a typo. If it wasn't a typo then the statement is insane. Having a drink and driving the speed limit is far safer than not having any drinks and driving 100MPH in a 40MPH zone.

 

[kazsymonds]

I didn't know "drink driving" was a real phrase, I assumed it was a typo. If it wasn't a typo then the statement is insane. Having a drink and driving the speed limit is far safer than not having any drinks and driving 100MPH in a 40MPH zone.

Now you're being obtuse.

Doing 100mph in a 40mph zone is safer than driving anywhere at any speed after 12 beers. Those two are comparable.

Any amount of alcohol counts as drunk, just a lighter shade of drunk. To think that you are the authority on how much is too much is arrogant.

 

[stemot]

It's people like No Limit that cause heartache for families throughout the world. If you want to have "2 or 3 beers" then drive and wipe yourself out because you think you're not inflicted then fine, but everytime you do it you risk killing someone through your idiotic actions. Grow up.

Just for the record, my job depends on my driving and I have never even had one drink then got into a car. It's called responsibility.

 

[No Limit]

Who said anything about 12 beers?

Your absolute hypocrisy here is mind blowing. You said earlier that putting other people in danger on the road would make you a complete twat. Then you said speeding doesn't put any one in danger. Eventhough over 10,000 accidents happen each year where the driver was speeding and every single statistic totally disagrees with you.

So you are calling me arrogant for trying to say how much alcohol is too much while sitting here and trying to tell us that speeding isn't dangerous at all? Seriously, I haven't seen this kind of blatant hypocrisy here in a very long time.

It's people like No Limit that cause heartache for families throughout the world. If you want to have "2 or 3 beers" then drive and wipe yourself out because you think you're not inflicted then fine, but everytime you do it you risk killing someone through your idiotic actions. Grow up.

Care to address anything I said or do you just want to be a arrogant prick that repeats the same thing over and over again. Have you ever sped?

 

[kazsymonds]

Who said anything about 12 beers?

Your absolute hypocrisy here is mind blowing. You said earlier that putting other people in danger on the road would make you a complete twat. Then you said speeding doesn't put any one in danger. Eventhough over 10,000 accidents happen each year where the driver was speeding and every single statistic totally disagrees with you.

So you are calling me arrogant for trying to say how much alcohol is too much while sitting here and trying to tell us that speeding isn't dangerous at all? Seriously, I haven't seen this kind of blatant hypocrisy here in a very long time.

Show me where I said speeding isn't dangerous?

I gave you an example of a road with a lot of traffic with a high speed differential, and said that the numbers suggested that those roads aren't more dangerous.

I'd invite you to withdraw this 'hypocrite' comment you keep making, I never said that speeding was good or clever.

No doubt speeding is dangerous, but FAR LESS dangerous than drink driving.

Imagine a road where everyone goes 10% faster than the speed limit, and another road where everyone has had more than one beer.

Which would you rather drive on, with your wife and kids in the car?

Speeding is a separate issue, I've never said that breaking the speed limit is ok. To drink drive is one thing, but to act like it's ok to do that is definitely not cool.

 

[Bad^Hat]

a arrogant prick that repeats the same thing over and over again.

Hahaha, oh boy.

 

[CptStern]

I don't disagree with you at all. I'm saying the limit of .08 is bullshit because nobody should go to jail for driving after 2 or even 3 beers. People that speed in excess of 20-30MPH are more dangerous on the road than anyone that has a BAC of .08, yet they don't get taken to jail.

the problem is how do you make a rule that will apply to everyone equally without imposing some sort of lower limit of tolerance? how would you even prove impairment? it's really a slippery slope for the justice system as few cases could stick

Actually, he said "drink driving" which is driving after you've had a drink.

oh I thought it was drinking while driving. remember when that wasnt that big of a deal

 

[No Limit]

Show me where I said speeding isn't dangerous?

I asked you if speeding made you a complete twat since that too was dangerous. You didn't answer, instead you said that because Germany has no speedlimits on certain stretchs of the highway it must be safe.

I gave you an example of a road with a lot of traffic with a high speed differential, and said that the numbers suggested that those roads aren't more dangerous.

Lets look at the numbers, shall we?

From krynn's link:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1042_fatalities_by_highest_blood_alcohol_concentration.html

Around 4,000 people die each year that had a BAC of under .1%.

Then we have speeding being a factor in over 12,000 deaths that same year:

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffi...factor-in-one-third-of-all-fatal-crashes.html

I'd invite you to withdraw this 'hypocrite' comment you keep making, I never said that speeding was good or clever.

I will do that as soon as you stop putting speeders in a different class from people that have a couple of beers before driving.

the problem is how do you make a rule that will apply to everyone equally without imposing some sort of lower limit of tolerance? how would you even prove impairment? it's really a slippery slope for the justice system as few cases could stick

But BAC is actually a very good indicator of how impaired someone is. How much you have to drink to get to a cetain BAC level varies greatly from person to person and it's up to each person to figure out their limit. But the effect a specific BAC level has is not that varied. And a limit of .1% as most states already have I think would be very reasonable.

 

[Krynn72]

The numbers Krynn posted earlier from an actual source disagreed with your theory book.

No, they don't. It shows that half of all fatal car accidents involve people driving under the influence. To suggest that because the other 50% of all fatal car accidents happen without alcohol, its no worse to drive impaired than to drive normally shows a severe lack of understand on your part.

At a .05-.09 BAC the risk of getting into an accident is nine times higher than anyone who isn't.

And for the record, yes, I do think speeders should get in trouble. For example, people doing 15Mph over the speed limit in a 60Mph zone are just as bad, and thus I call them idiots as well.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/1997/pdf/Speed_Risk_1.pdf (page 37)

EDIT:

From krynn's link:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1042_fatalities_by_highest_blood_alcohol_concentration.html

Around 4,000 people die each year that had a BAC of under .1%.

Then we have speeding being a factor in over 12,000 deaths that same year:

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffi...factor-in-one-third-of-all-fatal-crashes.html

Way to make a bullshit comparison. You're comparing one subset of alcohol impaired drivers (meaning you're only looking at those under .1%) to the entire spectrum of speeders. How about we do a legitimate comparison by doing the entire spectrum of both? OH LOOK, your conclusion turns out to be bullshit. 12,000 fatalities due to speeding, versus 22,000 due to alcohol impairment!

 

[No Limit]

No, they don't. It shows that half of all fatal car accidents involve people driving under the influence. To suggest that because the other 50% of all fatal car accidents happen without alcohol, its no worse to drive impaired than to drive normally shows a severe lack of understand on your part.

At a .05-.09 BAC the risk of getting into an accident is nine times higher than anyone who isn't.

I stand corrected.

And for the record, yes, I do think speeders should get in trouble. For example, people doing 15Mph over the speed limit in a 60Mph zone are just as bad, and thus I call them idiots as well.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/1997/pdf/Speed_Risk_1.pdf (page 37)

Should we arrest those speeders, force them to post $10,000 in bail, and install speed limiters in their cars?

And I have a hard time believing that you are a saint that never exceeded the speed limit by 15MPH. And why only 15MPH? The link says every 3 MPH you speed you double your chances of being in a fatal crash. Is this a case of you being a little hypocritical here buddy? Or are you simply calling yourself (and virtually everyone that ever drove) an idiot?

 

[kazsymonds]

I asked you if speeding made you a complete twat since that too was dangerous. You didn't answer, instead you said that because Germany has no speedlimits on certain stretchs of the highway it must be safe.


Lets look at the numbers, shall we?

From krynn's link:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1042_fatalities_by_highest_blood_alcohol_concentration.html

Around 4,000 people die each year that had a BAC of under .1%.

Then we have speeding being a factor in over 12,000 deaths that same year:

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffi...factor-in-one-third-of-all-fatal-crashes.html



I will do that as soon as you stop putting speeders in a different class from people that have a couple of beers before driving.



But BAC is actually a very good indicator of how impaired someone is. How much you have to drink to get to a cetain BAC level varies greatly from person to person and it's up to each person to figure out their limit. But the effect a specific BAC level has is not that varied. And a limit of .1% as most states already have I think would be very reasonable.

From your second link;

Speed was a factor in 30 percent (12,477) of all traffic fatalities in 1998, second only to alcohol (39 percent) as a cause of fatal crashes.

When you take into account the fact that far more people go over the speed limit than drink drive, and then consider that the alcohol related fatalities still account for a greater amount of the total fatalities, is it really that difficult to see which is more dangerous?

I will say again, I would never condone speeding or drink driving, both would make you a twat. What would make you a bigger twat, and probably a colossal thunder ****, is to try to justify in any way consuming alcohol before getting behind the wheel OR speeding.

There are circumstances (at least in the UK) where I believe you are allowed to exceed the speed limit (overtaking etc).

 

[Krynn72]

I stand corrected.



Should we arrest those speeders, force them to post $10,000 in bail, and install speed limiters in their cars?

And I have a hard time believing that you are a saint that never exceeded the speed limit by 15MPH. And why only 15MPH? The link says every 3 MPH you speed you double your chances of being in a fatal crash. Is this a case of you being a little hypocritical here buddy? Or are you simply calling yourself (and virtually everyone that ever drove) an idiot?

Firstly, let me point out my edit in my last post. I want you to be aware that I called you out on your bullshit from the post before.

Secondly, I think the punishments for speeding are good the way they are.

Thirdly, I don't think I've ever traveled 15MPH higher than the speed limit. At least, not intentionally. I go the speed limit in most circumstances, the only times I don't is when it would be dangerous to so because the limit isn't well calculated for the area making people ignore it entirely and travel at a speed they feel comfortable.

And finally, we're comparing drivers with .05-.09 BAC, with an almost 10x risk of a fatal accident, thus the comparison to drivers who go 15mph over the limit.

 

[No Limit]

Look at the links Krynn posted, I really appreciate that he did those. They show that drinking and speeding increase the risk of fatal crashes in much the same way.

Each .02 doubles you chances of a fatal crash. But turns out each 3 mph over the speed limit does the exact same thing.

So let me know when you want to stop putting speeders and people that have a couple drinks in different categories so I can retract my hypocrite statement.

 

[No Limit]

Firstly, let me point out my edit in my last post. I want you to be aware that I called you out on your bullshit from the post before.

I was wrong on that point, as I told you. You corrected me. Congratulations. But your correction actually strengthens my main argument.

Secondly, I think the punishments for speeding are good the way they are.

Why? When both have about the same risk. Going over 15MPH is about as dangerous as .08%. So why the different standards?

Thirdly, I don't think I've ever traveled 15MPH higher than the speed limit. At least, not intentionally. I go the speed limit in most circumstances, the only times I don't is when it would be dangerous to so because the limit isn't well calculated for the area, and people ignore it.

So now you get to decide when it's ok to speed and when it's ok not to. But I don't get to decide if I can have a couple of drinks druing a football game.

And fourthly, we're comparing drivers with .05-.09 BAC, with an almost 10x risk of a fatal accident, thus the comparison with to drivers who go 15mph over the limit.

Fair enough. So why the hypocrisy in terms of punishments? For 15MPH over you get a small fine. For .08 BAC you go to jail, you have to post $10,000 bail, and get a breathalizer in your car. And that's just for the first offense.

 

[ríomhaire]

*edit* Ignore, I was tired and misunderstood what was being said

 

[Minister]

I will say again, I would never condone speeding or drink driving, both would make you a twat. What would make you a bigger twat, and probably a colossal thunder ****, is to try to justify in any way consuming alcohol before getting behind the wheel OR speeding.

There are circumstances (at least in the UK) where I believe you are allowed to exceed the speed limit (overtaking etc).

On the motorway, I regularly speed. I usually sit between 80-90 mph. Most cars around me travel at more or less the same speed. Obviously, I slow down when traffic or weather conditions require it. I also enjoy having a beer (just the one) to accompany my meal if I'm dining out.

My justification for speeding was that most other cars were doing the same and my justification for drinking was that I enjoy it. Am I a twat and a colossal thunder ****?

 

[kazsymonds]

On the motorway, I regularly speed. I usually sit between 80-90 mph. Most cars around me travel at more or less the same speed. Obviously, I slow down when traffic or weather conditions require it. I also enjoy having a beer (just the one) to accompany my meal if I'm dining out.

My justification for speeding was that most other cars were doing the same and my justification for drinking was that I enjoy it. Am I a twat and a colossal thunder ****?

Which lane are you sat in? Are you overtaking, or just driving that fast because you can?

Are you saying that the cars in the slow lane were doing 80-90mph?

If you are on a motorway, and matching speed for overtaking, I don't have anything against you.

 

[No Limit]

You hear that Minister? As long as you follow his rules for speeding you've got his approval. You must be relieved.

 

[Krynn72]

I was wrong on that point, as I told you. You corrected me. Congratulations. But your correction actually strengthens my main argument.

Your main argument is that "its no big deal bro everybody does it." In what way does drunk driving being more dangerous than speeding support that argument?

Why? When both have about the same risk. Going over 15MPH is about as dangerous as .08%. So why the different standards?

<.08 BAC gets you no punishment. <15mph over the limit does. Why the different standards indeed.

So now you get to decide when it's ok to speed and when it's ok not to. But I don't get to decide if I can have a couple of drinks druing a football game.

Please, don't even try to compare the accuracy of the setting of speed limits on every individual section of every individual road with the accuracy of impairment at certain BAC levels. The chances of inaccuracies in the former far, far exceed those of the latter.

Fair enough. So why the hypocrisy in terms of punishments? For 15MPH over you get a small fine. For .08 BAC you go to jail, you have to post $10,000 bail, and get a breathalizer in your car. And that's just for the first offense.

Ignoring the social elements, such as Zero Tolerance policies and such, I do think the punishments for drunk driving are a bit severe. They should however be more severe than speeding, in my opinion, because drunk driving cannot be accidental, like speeding can. Speeding can also be temporary, when when trying to overtake, or find an opening to get into an exit lane, etc. Alcohol related impairment is not temporary in the same sense. You won't be suddenly not impaired 10 seconds from now, like you might with speeding. The willful disregard of safety is much clearer in DUI cases, and thus I think they should be punished much harsher than in the average speeding case.

And thats not to mention that once you're given a speeding ticket, you can continue on your way by not speeding. Once you're caught for DUI, its not like they can write a ticket and let you go on your merry drunken way.

 

[Minister]

Not every car in the slow lane was doing 80-90. Lorries use the slow lane and they can't drive that fast. I was on the M5, it was quiet. Majority of cars were going at 80-90mph. Sometimes I would be going at 80-90 in the slow lane, from which I would move if I had to overtake. I would slow down nearing junctions and obviously if traffic began to become more heavy.

 

[No Limit]

Your main argument is that "its no big deal bro everybody does it." In what way does drunk driving being more dangerous than speeding support that argument?

For ****sake, not drunk driving. Driving after a few drinks. And as you just proved having a BAC of .08 is just as dangerous as going 15 over the speed limit.

<.08 BAC gets you no punishment. <15mph over the limit does. Why the different standards indeed.

Because to breathalize someone you need to tow their car and take them to a police station. You got any other stupid comparisons or would you like to answer the simple question?

Please, don't even try to compare the accuracy of the setting of speed limits on every individual section of every individual road with the accuracy of impairment at certain BAC levels. The chances of inaccuracies in the former far, far exceed those of the latter.

In your opinion.

Ignoring the social elements, such as Zero Tolerance policies and such, I do think the punishments for drunk driving are a bit severe. They should however be more severe than speeding, in my opinion, because drunk driving cannot be accidental, like speeding can. Speeding can also be temporary, when when trying to overtake, or find an opening to get into an exit lane, etc. Alcohol related impairment is not temporary in the same sense. You won't be suddenly not impaired 10 seconds from now, like you might with speeding. The willful disregard of safety is much clearer in DUI cases, and thus I think they should be punished much harsher than in the average speeding case.

I absolutely agree with you that drunk driving should be treated much more severely than speeding. What I don't agree with is that .08 is drunk driving. If the limit was .1% as is the case in most other states I would not be having this argument.

 

[Krynn72]

For ****sake, not drunk driving. Driving after a few drinks. And as you just proved having a BAC of .08 is just as dangerous as going 15 over the speed limit.

And how does that make it no big deal bro?

Because to breathalize someone you need to tow their car and take them to a police station. You got any other stupid comparisons or would you like to answer the simple question?

Cops have breathalizers with them. What kind of po-dunk town do you live in where they need to tow your shit and bring you to the station for sobriety and breathalizer tests?

In your opinion.

Wow. Just wow.

I absolutely agree with you that drunk driving should be treated much more severely than speeding. What I don't agree with is that .08 is drunk driving. If the limit was .1% as is the case in most other states I would not be having this argument.

Thats why I think you're an idiot. Being impaired at .08 is no big deal bro while being impaired at .1 is big deal bro. I think if you're impaired from alcohol then big deal bro.

 

[No Limit]

And how does that make it no big deal bro?

Did Ridge hijack your account?

It is no more of a big deal than going 15 over is. As you showed that to us with your own link. I am not the one making this claim, you did.

Cops have breathalizers with them. What kind of po-dunk town do you live in where they need to tow your shit and bring you to the station for sobriety and breathalizer tests?

Every area in the US I'm aware of the breathalizer is at the station for legal resons. Where are you hearing otherwise?

Wow. Just wow.

Not sure what you don't understand here. There are posted speed limits. It is your opinion those speed limits are wrong. It is not fact, it is opinion.

Thats why I think you're an idiot. Being impaired at .08 is no big deal bro while being impaired at .1 is big deal bro. I think if you're impaired from alcohol then big deal bro.

To be fair you think everyone is an idiot because you're just a typical asshole that thinks he's smarter than everyone else. I don't mind, it's who you are.

The difference between .1 and .08 is a big difference. If it's .08 having 3 beers is almost always illegal and chances are I could have been arrested for DWI just off the couple drinks I had. If it's .1 for many people 3 beers would still be ok. Many people get arrested each year for being at .08 or .09, so there clearly is a big difference.

 

[kazsymonds]

Not every car in the slow lane was doing 80-90. Lorries use the slow lane and they can't drive that fast. I was on the M5, it was quiet. Majority of cars were going at 80-90mph. Sometimes I would be going at 80-90 in the slow lane, from which I would move if I had to overtake. I would slow down nearing junctions and obviously if traffic began to become more heavy.

I know the M5 very well.

The traffic along that road is usually lorries doing 50mph in the slow lane, and people overtaking in the outside 2 lanes. It would be silly to not match the speed of the traffic you are in when you are overtaking / on a motorway. I said that in my post, there are circumstances where it is safer to go faster.

The type of speeding we are talking about is where you do 50mph in a 30mph zone outside a school, which is where most accidents probably occur.

 

[No Limit]

^ Again with the blatant hypocrisy.

 

[Minister]

Here is another one for you.

Person A is driving on a motorway at 6am on clear dry Sunday morning,very few vehicles on the road.
They are travelling at 100mph.

Person B is driving on the same motorway in winter at a busy period,
weaving in and out of traffic at 70mph.

Who is more dangerous?


I'm just trying to stop you lumping everybody together as being the same. Which I seem to have managed.

Other than that I pretty much agree with everything else you and Krynn are saying. Even if both of you seem to be a little too self-righteous about it.

 

[kazsymonds]

^ Again with the blatant hypocrisy.

Describe a situation where it would be safer to drink before you get behind the wheel?

 

[No Limit]

There is no situation. Just as there is no situation where speeding is safer. If other cars are going fast then get in the slow lane, that's what its there for.

The situation you described with trucks going 50 Km/hr in the slow lane is simple, just get behind them and you will be perfectly safe.

The fact is that for ever 5 km/hr you speed you double the chances of you getting in a wreck. According to your logic you are putting people in danger for no good reason makes you a complete twat. I don't agree with your logic.