Danger! Danger!

On 2/8/2020 7:06 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 3:39:05 PM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:18:44 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 08:43:44 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 7:02:34 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2020 07:38:02 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

The problem with drunk driving laws is that they are applying them to
someone that just had a beer because some people are uncontrollable
drunks. None of the members of my family had their ability to drive
impaired under the old standard. If anything they would drive more
carefully because their reaction times might have been increased.
Rather than cops being more observant of people's dangerous driving
they simple reduced the legal alcohol limit by 20%.

What is the purpose of punishing someone who is driving carefully
because they have alcohol in their system when they are struck by a
sober person running a red light over the speed limit?

Scientific evidence that your judgement is impaired, no matter wheather
t you judge it to be or not.

Apparently you don't read well. If a cop is parked down the street from
a bar and sees someone come out and then follows them and pulls them
over no matter how carefully they've been driving - even to the extend
of driving far more carefully than half of the people on the road, they
can cite them for "drunk driving" despite the fact that two beers can
put you over the limit now. It, like mandatory helmet laws, make no
sense and are there only to make cities money.

The system here is you get breath tested and if readings warrant it, then
you do a blood test and then whamo if above mandated level. Catching them
outside bars/pub/drinking hole is inefficent as there are mandatory
holding periods between tests and it just leads to wasted cop time and
not metting their (non existent) quota.

This is why we have random roadside testing buses. Much more efficent in
plod time and resources. Also, plod can breathalyse you during a random
traffic stop.

The limit used to be 1.2%. At this level people that drink a lot could operate in a perfectly safe manner, though people that don't drink much could lose control. Then they dropped it to 1% not because drinking was killing people, but because incompetent drivers that were drinking would lose control of their reckless driving easier. Now for the identical reason the limit is now 0.8%. Depending on people's metabolism that can be two beers.

What you mean is .08% BAC. LD50 for alcohol is .4% BAC. You're definitely dead at .8% AND SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING!!

-- Jay Beattie.


pfft. California amateurs:


https://www.grievelaw.com/WisconsinO...nePersonRecord

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 08:34:14 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 6:31:46 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 15:39:03 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:18:44 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 08:43:44 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 7:02:34 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 05 Feb 2020 07:38:02 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

The problem with drunk driving laws is that they are applying them to
someone that just had a beer because some people are uncontrollable
drunks. None of the members of my family had their ability to drive
impaired under the old standard. If anything they would drive more
carefully because their reaction times might have been increased.
Rather than cops being more observant of people's dangerous driving
they simple reduced the legal alcohol limit by 20%.

What is the purpose of punishing someone who is driving carefully
because they have alcohol in their system when they are struck by a
sober person running a red light over the speed limit?

Scientific evidence that your judgement is impaired, no matter wheather
t you judge it to be or not.

Apparently you don't read well. If a cop is parked down the street from
a bar and sees someone come out and then follows them and pulls them
over no matter how carefully they've been driving - even to the extend
of driving far more carefully than half of the people on the road, they
can cite them for "drunk driving" despite the fact that two beers can
put you over the limit now. It, like mandatory helmet laws, make no
sense and are there only to make cities money.

The system here is you get breath tested and if readings warrant it, then
you do a blood test and then whamo if above mandated level. Catching them
outside bars/pub/drinking hole is inefficent as there are mandatory
holding periods between tests and it just leads to wasted cop time and
not metting their (non existent) quota.

This is why we have random roadside testing buses. Much more efficent in
plod time and resources. Also, plod can breathalyse you during a random
traffic stop.

The limit used to be 1.2%. At this level people that drink a lot could operate in a perfectly safe manner, though people that don't drink much could lose control. Then they dropped it to 1% not because drinking was killing people, but because incompetent drivers that were drinking would lose control of their reckless driving easier. Now for the identical reason the limit is now 0.8%. Depending on people's metabolism that can be two beers.

Err TOM! I keep telling you that it is better to keep silent and
perhaps be thought a fool then to speak and prove it.

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.
--
cheers,

John B.

For someone that was telling us that he was a crew chief on bombing missions in a B50 if I were you

Ah but I never told you that I was a crew chief on B-50'sd "on bombing
missions".

I would remain silent.

I see that the terrorists are getting closer to you. Maybe you ought to get one of those guns that you think are only for criminals.

Nor have I ever said that I think guns are only for criminals.

Gee Tommy, you got it wrong about the shootings in Korat, you got it
wrong about blood alcohol ratios, you got it wrong about the B-50's
and you got it wrong about guns for criminals.

In short, you have, perhaps, set a new record for getting things wrong
..
I keep telling you Tommy that it is better to remain silent and be
thought a fool than to speak and prove it.... and you have certainly
proved it today.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

I think Utah is trying to justify its max 4% ABV for beer on tap. It's to keep you from blowing over %.05 after you've had a few glasses -- or five. It's for your own safety.

Speaking of safety, MY HELMET SAVED MY LIFE TODAY! I was skiing at Mt. Hood Meadows -- gorgeous blue bird day with dreadful lift lines -- and was at the main lodge, leaning against a wall, waiting to meet up with my brother, when a giant chunk of snow and ice fell off a second story roof right onto my head. It totally freaked out the resort people who thought I'd surely been injured. Luckily, I was wearing my trusty ski helmet. One of the resort folks actually came over to check on me; he held up two fingers and asked me what I saw -- and my answer was "lifetime free lift tickets." They didn't oblige. TBut for my helmet, I would certainly be dead.

-- Jay Beattie.

jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 9:18:12 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/8/2020 6:31 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

A BAC of 0.5% is almost certain to cause death thus it is extremely
doubtful that there was ever a limit of 1.2%, or for that matter 0.5%
as in either case the law would essentially be saying that it was
illegal for a dead man to drive a car.

Of course he meant 0.1% and 0.08%. Utah lowered the limit to 0.05%. A
study in The Lancet showed no effect on accidents caused by DUI when
Scotland lowered the limit to 0.05%
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32850-2/fulltext.

I think Utah is trying to justify its max 4% ABV for beer on tap. It's to
keep you from blowing over %.05 after you've had a few glasses -- or
five. It's for your own safety.

Speaking of safety, MY HELMET SAVED MY LIFE TODAY! I was skiing at Mt.
Hood Meadows -- gorgeous blue bird day with dreadful lift lines -- and
was at the main lodge, leaning against a wall, waiting to meet up with my
brother, when a giant chunk of snow and ice fell off a second story roof
right onto my head. It totally freaked out the resort people who thought
I'd surely been injured. Luckily, I was wearing my trusty ski helmet. One
of the resort folks actually came over to check on me; he held up two
fingers and asked me what I saw -- and my answer was "lifetime free lift
tickets." They didn't oblige. TBut for my helmet, I would certainly be dead.

-- Jay Beattie.


Not to take sides in the helmet debate, but if you hadn’t been wearing a
helmet, you’d have had higher odds of getting those free lift tickets.

On 2/9/2020 5:47 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Speaking of safety, MY HELMET SAVED MY LIFE TODAY! I was skiing at Mt. Hood Meadows -- gorgeous blue bird day with dreadful lift lines -- and was at the main lodge, leaning against a wall, waiting to meet up with my brother, when a giant chunk of snow and ice fell off a second story roof right onto my head. It totally freaked out the resort people who thought I'd surely been injured. Luckily, I was wearing my trusty ski helmet. One of the resort folks actually came over to check on me; he held up two fingers and asked me what I saw -- and my answer was "lifetime free lift tickets." They didn't oblige. TBut for my helmet, I would certainly be dead.

Well you should have whipped out a business card before you asked for
lifetime free lift tickets, and lifetime free accommodations at
Timberline Lodge.

Don't forget to wear your gardening helmet and showering helmet.

On 2/9/2020 6:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
jbeattie wrote:

snip

I'd surely been injured. Luckily, I was wearing my trusty ski helmet. One
of the resort folks actually came over to check on me; he held up two
fingers and asked me what I saw -- and my answer was "lifetime free lift
tickets." They didn't oblige. TBut for my helmet, I would certainly be dead.

-- Jay Beattie.


Not to take sides in the helmet debate, but if you hadn’t been wearing a
helmet, you’d have had higher odds of getting those free lift tickets.

But they'd be for his heirs.

On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 17:47:01 -0800 (PST),
jbeattie wrote:
[i]
was at the main lodge, leaning against a wall, waiting to
meet up with my brother, when a giant chunk of snow and ice
fell off a second story roof right onto my head. It totally
freaked out the resort people who thought I'd surely been
injured. Luckily, I was wearing my trusty ski helmet. One of
the resort folks actually came over to check on me; he held up
two fingers and asked me what I saw -- and my answer was
"lifetime free lift tickets." They didn't oblige.

Did they at least smile?

--
Ted Heise West Lafayette, IN, USA

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:54:20 AM UTC-8, Ted Heise wrote:[i]
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 17:47:01 -0800 (PST),
jbeattie wrote:

was at the main lodge, leaning against a wall, waiting to
meet up with my brother, when a giant chunk of snow and ice
fell off a second story roof right onto my head. It totally
freaked out the resort people who thought I'd surely been
injured. Luckily, I was wearing my trusty ski helmet. One of
the resort folks actually came over to check on me; he held up
two fingers and asked me what I saw -- and my answer was
"lifetime free lift tickets." They didn't oblige.

Did they at least smile?

Yes. They were also concerned and said if I had problems, I could go to the clinic. https://s3-media0.fl.yelpcdn.com/bph...vHz2sHnA/o.jpg Nooooo, not the clinic! Fine folks, but I've still got PTSD from my own injuries and those of my family. My wife said my pupils were fine. I took two Tylenols (for my knees) and went skiing with my old-but-fast brother.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:18:21 -0800 (PST),
jbeattie wrote:[i]
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 4:54:20 AM UTC-8, Ted Heise wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 17:47:01 -0800 (PST),
jbeattie wrote:

was at the main lodge, leaning against a wall, waiting
to meet up with my brother, when a giant chunk of snow and
ice fell off a second story roof right onto my head. It
totally freaked out the resort people who thought I'd
surely been injured. Luckily, I was wearing my trusty ski
helmet. One of the resort folks actually came over to check
on me; he held up two fingers and asked me what I saw --
and my answer was "lifetime free lift tickets." They didn't
oblige.

Did they at least smile?

Yes. They were also concerned and said if I had problems, I
could go to the clinic.
https://s3-media0.fl.yelpcdn.com/bph...vHz2sHnA/o.jpg
Nooooo, not the clinic! Fine folks, but I've still got PTSD
from my own injuries and those of my family. My wife said my
pupils were fine. I took two Tylenols (for my knees) and went
skiing with my old-but-fast brother.

Well thats good. Glad you weren't hurt, and it does look like it
was a beautiful day!

--
Ted Heise West Lafayette, IN, USA