#31
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 2:34:35 AM UTC, Ralph Barone wrote:
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. Images of Beattie's skeleton riding up and down in the ski lift seat permanently assigned to him... --AJ |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
sms wrote:
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. Hey. The plan works. Don’t be getting all finicky about the fine details :-) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
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. They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter. No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich 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. They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter. No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country. Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order. -- Jay Beattie. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On 2/10/2020 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich 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. They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter. No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country. Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order. What about DUI checkpoints? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:21:15 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/10/2020 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich 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. They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter.. No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country. Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over.. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On 2/10/2020 1:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich 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. They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter. No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country. Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order. -- Jay Beattie. +1 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:50:25 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich 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. They would much rather argue typos that the actual facts of the matter. No one seems to want to face the facts and especially the police - that the causes of most accidents isn't alcohol but reckless driving. Since it is EASY to prove alcohol and difficult to prove reckless driving we have an entire legal system built to ignore the greatest cause of lost lives in this country. Reckless driving is an offense even if you're sober. Most drunks are pulled over because they're doing something reckless like weaving back and forth, etc., etc. -- or just doing something odd like driving half the speed limit. It's not like the police have a device for measuring ambient alcohol levels like a radar gun and are pulling over good drivers for innocently emitting alcohol molecules. At any given moment, there are people driving down the road in a straight line with .05% BAC and not getting pulled over. If you've been drinking and call attention to yourself, a DUII is in order. -- Jay Beattie. I was on the San Mateo bridge and as you near the Hayward end you can either go through the town and pick up the freeway on the far side of town or move in the left two lanes and merge into 880 North which goes through my town. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On 2/10/2020 11:51 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:21:15 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: On 2/10/2020 11:03 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip What about DUI checkpoints? Are they legal in California? Yes. They don't give a breathalyzer test to everyone, they ask you some questions before they decide. They will typically set them up on Friday and Saturday nights, and on major holidays where they know that people are likely have been drinking. Two years ago I was at a July 4th party where the hosts had just sold their house and were moving to Denmark. They had all their accumulated, over many decades, liquor out on a table. They insisted that everyone drink it since they couldn't take it with them. I didn't think I was drunk, but I wanted to be extra cautious and thought I should not drive home after the fireworks, which we could see from their back yard. So I began walking. It's only about two miles but I was pretty tired. I was walking west on Stevens Creek Boulevard, and I saw a VTA bus parked at the bus stop across the street so I got on and took it home. Good thing because just a few blocks down the road there was a DUI checkpoint with several Santa Clara County Sheriff's deputies and they waved the VTA bus right through. I made it home safely even though I had never driven a bus before. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Danger! Danger!
On 2/10/2020 11:51 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 11:21:15 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: snip What about DUI checkpoints? Are they legal in California? Yes. They don't give a breathalyzer test to everyone, they ask you some questions before they decide. They will typically set them up on Friday and Saturday nights, and on major holidays where they know that people are likely have been drinking. Two years ago I was at a July 4th party where the hosts had just sold their house and were moving to Denmark. They had all their accumulated, over many decades, liquor out on a table. They insisted that everyone drink it since they couldn't take it with them. I didn't think I was drunk, but I wanted to be extra cautious and thought I should not drive home after the fireworks, which we could see from their back yard. So I began walking. It's only about two miles but I was pretty tired. I was walking west on Stevens Creek Boulevard, and I saw a VTA bus parked at the bus stop across the street so I got on and took it home. Good thing because just a few blocks down the road there was a DUI checkpoint with several Santa Clara County Sheriff's deputies and they waved the VTA bus right through. I made it home safely even though I had never driven a bus before. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Danger! Danger! Get a flag! | Frank Krygowski[_4_] | Techniques | 26 | January 23rd 16 09:06 PM |
Danger! Danger! That cyclist there! You're in a shipping lane! | [email protected] | Techniques | 1 | October 14th 15 10:28 PM |
DANGER! DANGER! Beware wandering sheep if MTBing in Greece | Sir Ridesalot | Techniques | 25 | September 23rd 15 12:10 PM |
Danger! Danger! (Worst liability waiver?) | [email protected] | General | 16 | February 12th 08 09:18 AM |
DO NOT WEAR YOUR HELMLET!! DANGER, DANGER, danger | TJ | Mountain Biking | 4 | December 23rd 06 07:03 PM |