View Full Version : Early Morning Drunk Really Had to Work to Kill Cyclist
wagathon
10-16-07, 03:05 PM
Another Dana Point death, by a drunk for sure and probably a drunk that took the coast route to avoid detection by the HP. And, driving over the curb to kill the cyclist on a sidewalk?
Cyclist Run Over And Killed By Alleged Drunk Driver
10-16-2007 12:23 AM
(Dana Point, CA) -- A cyclist was struck and killed by an alleged drunk driver in Dana Point while riding home from work early Monday. Orange County sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino say 26-year-old Michelle Stearns of San Juan Capistrano drove her BMW station wagon over a street curb. Amormino says the car struck an Hispanic in his 20s who was riding on the sidewalk. He says the man was killed instantly and the car traveled another 20 feet before striking a power box. Power was knocked out in the area for hours. Stearns blood alcohol level was allegedly two-and-a-half times the legal limit.
Copyright 2007 Metro Networks Communications Inc., A Westwood One Company
I think this Dana Point incident was covered in an earlier thread...
But this question comes up... what is the deal with 26 year old women in So Cal that have to be so drunk?
Yeah it is a generalization... and an unfair one to boot... but it was just what came to mind when I read this tidbit in the morning paper...
By Lisa Petrillo
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
October 16, 2007
How could someone like Tiffany Adamo with four DUI arrests in six months still be able to get behind the wheel and, according to police, drive under the influence again last weekend?
“I ask myself the same question,” said La Mesa police Lt. Alan White. “They get behind the wheel of a car and drive, that's how.”
La Mesa police have arrested the 26-year-old Ramona woman three times in the past three weeks on suspicion of driving under the influence – including Saturday in what records show was her fifth arrest under DUI laws. The California Highway Patrol arrested her May 26, and the county Sheriff's Department arrested her on suspicion of DUI on June 28.
On Sept. 27, La Mesa police arrested her, saying she was under the influence in her car at a dead stop on a busy street. Three days before Saturday's arrest, they arrested Adamo again after finding her passed out behind the wheel and blocking traffic, White said.
She posted bail on past cases, none of which has gone to trial.
La Mesa police say Adamo was driving so impaired in the Grossmont shopping center parking lot about 2:20 p.m. Saturday that she pinned a 7-year-old boy against his mother's car. The boy's mother pounded on Adamo's 2000 Toyota Camry for her to stop before the car crushed the child. Police said Adamo stopped, and the boy was not seriously hurt. When Adamo tried to drive away, the mother said she blocked her until authorities arrived.
The difference between her four previous arrests and Saturday's is that, for the first time, Adamo faces felony charges, authorities say. She remained in jail on $250,000 bail.
Adamo's case is an example of a problem with the drunken-driving laws, said Pat Hodgkin of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in San Diego.
“This is not uncommon. The problem is they're misdemeanors, and they just get probation,” she said. Such drivers often “lose their license, but they keep driving because they can,” Hodgkin added.
The cases against Adamo have been proceeding properly, said Glen McAllister of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office. Just not quickly.
Adamo had no criminal record before her arrests, public records show. Her lawyer was unavailable for comment.
She grew up in Santee, her family said, did well in school, attended community college and had been engaged to be married. She had been working as an office manager for a San Diego skin-care business, prosecutors said.
“Everyone who meets her just loves her to death,” said her grandfather, John Adamo of Missouri. “There's just a kindness in her heart.”
She lately had been pursuing a career as an emergency medical technician, her grandfather said, but had been having trouble getting a job.
Police say Adamo had several prescription narcotics in her possession and showed signs of being under the influence of what they described as a “central nervous system depressant.” In each case, she was tested for drugs, the presence of which must be detected by laboratory technicians, and that can take weeks.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20071016-9999-1m16ramona.html
That is quite possibly the funniest damned title I have ever read for a thread in this forum.
Treespeed
10-16-07, 04:09 PM
I think this Dana Point incident was covered in an earlier thread...
But this question comes up... what is the deal with 26 year old women in So Cal that have to be so drunk?
Yeah it is a generalization... and an unfair one to boot... but it was just what came to mind when I read this tidbit in the morning paper...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20071016-9999-1m16ramona.html
Not for nothing Gene, but I'm sure a review of National DUI ticketing would find a large selection of 26 year old drunks throughout the country. I don't think So Cal has any monopoly on drunk drivers of any gender. Though I don't understand how many more people will have to die before they start really punishing these drivers.
And on a more So Cal specific idea, how is it that celebrities who can afford drivers still get busted for drunk driving? Or is this just a PR thing?
And on a more So Cal specific idea, how is it that celebrities who can afford drivers still get busted for drunk driving? Or is this just a PR thing?
Darn good question... I have never figured that one out either.
As far as PR, boy that sure is a long way to go for publicity. I would think running nude down the beach would do more for some careers.
Maybe riding a bike in a public place might do even more. :D
donnamb
10-16-07, 05:00 PM
Not for nothing Gene, but I'm sure a review of National DUI ticketing would find a large selection of 26 year old drunks throughout the country. I don't think So Cal has any monopoly on drunk drivers of any gender. Though I don't understand how many more people will have to die before they start really punishing these drivers.
Very true. My employer is a state certified DUII treatment agency and we have diversion classes in the office I run. I have to say, the biggest whiners and complainers are the women in their mid-twenties. They don't feel they should have to be there, the police officer was mean to them, the penalties are too harsh, they weren't that drunk, etc. It's amazing. If you can imagine one of those vapid women's fashion magazines complaining about DUII laws, our waiting room on Tuesday nights would be it. :rolleyes:
Treespeed
10-16-07, 05:09 PM
Darn good question... I have never figured that one out either.
As far as PR, boy that sure is a long way to go for publicity. I would think running nude down the beach would do more for some careers.
Maybe riding a bike in a public place might do even more. :D
I would think that would be half the fun of being rich and famous either a party at your big ole house where you can invite everyone over or having a limo waiting to take you from bar to bar, if that's what floats your boat.
I have a friend though who writes for People and I'll tell you seeing the mighty fallen is what sells papers not someone being smart and healthy.
Cyclaholic
10-16-07, 05:26 PM
“There's just a kindness in her heart.”
....unless you're a 7 year old boy standing between her and your moms' cars, then you're sandwich meat.
“This is not uncommon. The problem is they're misdemeanors, and they just get probation,” she said. Such drivers often “lose their license, but they keep driving because they can,” Hodgkin added.
Why are these people, who have clearly demonstrated time and again that they are incapable of owning a car without deliberately endangering others still allowed to own a car? If you use a gun to hurt people are you still allowed to remain in possesion of the gun?
WTF is wrong with people?
donnamb
10-16-07, 06:04 PM
Some of them have relatives who will lend them a car, even if they don't own one. It's incredible.
Cyclaholic
10-16-07, 06:31 PM
Some of them have relatives who will lend them a car, even if they don't own one. It's incredible.
Yeah, it's crazy. As far as I'm concerned the relative that lends the car should have to face the exact same charges as the driver, and also permanently lose the car if found guilty.
THere ya go. Never ride on the sidewalk. :)
tehdely
10-17-07, 04:50 AM
Alcoholism's a *****.
toddistic
10-17-07, 10:18 AM
soft on crime!
I feel as though we are losing some of the wonderful progress made by MADD and others over the past 20 years. We are evidently not reaching young adults (including some celebrities) regarding the dangers of driving while inebriated. Stricter penalties, including jail time and stiff fines, are perhaps the only answer.
alicestrong
10-17-07, 10:53 AM
Yeah...jail, fines and license restrictions at first offense.
Second?
Lock 'em up and throw away the key for good long while at the second offense. They can't be trusted NOT to continue to drive, maim and kill.
Sir Bikesalot
10-17-07, 01:29 PM
26-year-old Michelle Stearns of San Juan Capistrano drove her BMW station wagon over a street curb.
Another friggin' Bimmer driver. Sorry to generalize, but I hate them all.
Edit: OK, I'll make an exception for bikeforum members.
Carusoswi
10-17-07, 03:55 PM
I feel as though we are losing some of the wonderful progress made by MADD and others over the past 20 years. We are evidently not reaching young adults (including some celebrities) regarding the dangers of driving while inebriated. Stricter penalties, including jail time and stiff fines, are perhaps the only answer.
I think we're just hearing much more about DUI these days. I am not familiar with CA DUI laws - always thought them to be quite stiff. How is it that the sentences seem to be so light in CA? In PA, the third DUI is a felony, and the second carries an automatic 90-day jail term. The judge has no discretion.
As for MADD, my view is that they have put pressure on the wrong end of the scale, and continue to do so. They will not be satisfied until the legal limit for DUI is below .04. Problem drunk drivers are those with high BAC's and repeat offenses.
My .02.
Caruso
Jeronimo_
10-17-07, 05:08 PM
One problem is the repeat offenders who just don't care if they have no license, they drive anyways. The only plusses about them is that they are probably not a high percentage of drunk drivers and are also normally much more conditioned to a high BAC and seem to be less prone to being out of control compared to a 26 year old amateur/drunk in training. It seems that when a long-time drunk ends up killing or injuring someone with their vehicle, their BAC is ridiculously high, to levels that would kill a non-seasoned drunk.
One problem is the repeat offenders who just don't care if they have no license, they drive anyways. The only plusses about them is that they are probably not a high percentage of drunk drivers and are also normally much more conditioned to a high BAC and seem to be less prone to being out of control compared to a 26 year old amateur/drunk in training. It seems that when a long-time drunk ends up killing or injuring someone with their vehicle, their BAC is ridiculously high, to levels that would kill a non-seasoned drunk.
The key in both the repeat offenders and in the case of drunk in training is the presence of an available auto.
Perhaps that is the item that should be seized, beyond the license.
How many people are going to loan out a car with the understanding that if the unlicensed repeat offender is caught with it, the auto owner will both lose the car and be fined?
Every argument I have heard against seizing a car has to do with the offender holding down a job... perhaps we need to value others' lives higher than a job. Or have the court issue a bus pass. (heck they do it for people on jury duty, why can't convicted offenders be issued a bus pass too.)
The key in both the repeat offenders and in the case of drunk in training is the presence of an available auto.
Perhaps that is the item that should be seized, beyond the license.
How many people are going to loan out a car with the understanding that if the unlicensed repeat offender is caught with it, the auto owner will both lose the car and be fined?
Every argument I have heard against seizing a car has to do with the offender holding down a job... perhaps we need to value others' lives higher than a job. Or have the court issue a bus pass. (heck they do it for people on jury duty, why can't convicted offenders be issued a bus pass too.)
Or a bicycle.
I think that any drunk driver is a problem, even the ones that are not repeat offenders.
Having seen the effect of strict BAC levels (.05 and .02) and strict penalties (based upon monthly salary, mandatory jail time and license suspension) on people's behavior in other countries I'm all for lowering the legal limit. ...
I concur. Western Europeans are, if anything, more tolerant of socially responsible drinking than Americans, but far less tolerant of inebriated motorists. We can learn something from them on this subject.
If you dig deep in remarks made by MADD you'll find their goal is lowering the BAC to .00. It sounds like a noble cause but the research indicates that at .02 only young adults show any detectable impairment. You also don't see MADD campaigning to criminalize other forms of impairment such as talking on cell phones, text messaging, messing with iPods. Nor are they interested in criminalizing the other automotive behaviour that kills as many people as drunk driving, speeding.
We want first time DUI offenders to spend three days in jail and have their licenses suspended for six months because their drunkeness has the potential to cause harm. I agree, it has great potential to cause harm and there is lots of evidence. But how would everyone feel if we applied the same criteria to speeding tickets? Get caught speeding, three days in jail. Period.
Or a bicycle.
What a concept! :D
Sir Bikesalot
10-18-07, 10:43 AM
If speeding and drunk driving were equivalent offenses then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
They're not equivalent however.
Consider a car going 50 in a 15mph school zone, or a non-speeding drunk driver in same school zone. Personally, I'd feel equally threatened.
Sir Bikesalot
10-18-07, 11:16 AM
That doesn't make sense.
Which part don't you understand?
Feldman
10-18-07, 11:27 AM
Maybe it's time to bring back the stocks, like in Puritan New England.
Sir Bikesalot
10-18-07, 11:44 AM
It's not that I don't understand, it's that thinking that those scenarios are equivalent from a risk standpoint is nonsensical.
Please quantify the risk factor of both situations, compare them on a numerical scale, and then tell me it's nonsensical. Until then, keep non-constructive comments to yourself.
invisiblehand
10-18-07, 11:58 AM
Very true. My employer is a state certified DUII treatment agency and we have diversion classes in the office I run. I have to say, the biggest whiners and complainers are the women in their mid-twenties. They don't feel they should have to be there, the police officer was mean to them, the penalties are too harsh, they weren't that drunk, etc. It's amazing. If you can imagine one of those vapid women's fashion magazines complaining about DUII laws, our waiting room on Tuesday nights would be it. :rolleyes:
Funny, I always thought that the penalties were too lenient considering the risk to others.
invisiblehand
10-18-07, 12:01 PM
Having seen the effect of strict BAC levels (.05 and .02) and strict penalties (based upon monthly salary, mandatory jail time and license suspension) on people's behavior in other countries I'm all for lowering the legal limit.
Interesting ... What is the effect?
Follow-up question: Does anyone know what the effect of a 0.02% or 0.05% alcohol blood-level is on driving/reaction times/judgment? Is it severe?
littlewaywelt
10-18-07, 12:10 PM
If speeding and drunk driving were equivalent offenses then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
They're not equivalent however.
Equivalent? No, but very very close. From Drive For Life
Speed
Most crashes occur at 40 mph or less, but most fatal crashes occur at top speeds. Speeding creates an economic cost to society of $40.5 billion per year. In 2002, speeding was a contributing factor in 31% of all fatal crashes, and 13,713 lives were lost in speeding-related crashes. At least eight in 10 drivers admit to speeding at least monthly on each road type. Men are 25% more likely to speed than women.
Alcohol
Alcohol-related deaths account for 41% of total traffic fatalities or an average of one every 30 minutes. Two of every three children killed in alcohol-related crashes were riding in a car with a driver who had been drinking – but who was not necessarily drunk. Nearly a third of teen drivers who were killed in motor vehicle crashes had been drinking. More than two-thirds of them were not wearing seat belts.
Sir Bikesalot
10-18-07, 12:38 PM
Also, even if someone accepts your cherry-picked scenarios as realistic, they aren't representative of the relative risks posed by speeding and drunk driving.
Not cherry-picking. A study by the SAFE KIDS coalition found that 65% of drivers speed in school zones. And "mild" drunk-driving which results in elevated BAC but which does not result in risk behavior such as speeding or swerving is very common.
Sir Bikesalot
10-18-07, 12:42 PM
Which part of "discussion" are you struggling with?
Since you apparently can't handle opinions that differ from yours, I would suggest that you turn of the computer and go huddle on your couch.
Good luck!
Can't do it huh? No need to resort to personal insults.
I think I can handle different opinions admirably well. You're the one who can't; witness the "nonsensical" label you gave mine a few posts back.
Sir Bikesalot
10-18-07, 12:53 PM
How do drunk drivers kill? Mostly by speeding and swerving into oncoming lanes and sidewalks. So speeding and swerving into oncoming lanes and sidewalks are both dangerous behaviors that should be prosecuted harshly--no matter what causes the behavior in the first place, whether the person is drunk, stoned or talking on the cellphone. They should be prosecuted equally...and without mercy.
littlewaywelt
10-18-07, 12:54 PM
I think that the statistics need to be examined closely.
For instance "speeding-related" covers a broad range of fatalities, including folks who were speeding while not wearing seat belts.
Some speeding offenses might be almost equivalent to the drunk driving, in terms of jeopardizing innocent bystanders/other road users, like the idiots who street race or freeway race.
Most garden variety speeding, like Mr. Jones driving 45 in a 35 or the vast majority of cars on a typical California freeway that are exceeding the speed limit, is not equivalent to drunk driving and that's the reason that the penalties are different.
I gave you the stat...don't like it then dig in and break it down by analyzing the numbers not providing what you believe to be "garden variety" whatever. Seatbelts? How is that relevant at all? What about drunks that don't wear seatbelts?
The facts speak for themselves. Often ppl think it's ok to break the laws that they deem unimportant or without consequence and when confronted with anything that counters it they try and rationalize it. The simple fact is everyone thinks speeding is victimless and it's not. Not by a longshot. If you want to continue to believe speeding is inconsequential as compared to drunk driving that's your own personal rationalization.
Sir Bikesalot
10-18-07, 12:58 PM
You're daft if you think that my labeling your nonsensical comments as nonsensical has anything to do with not be able to handle different opinions.
Again, which part of "discussion" are you struggling with?
p.s. Is telling someone to "shut up" really handling different opinions "admirably well" on your planet?
I'm daft now? :rolleyes:
The guy can't stop. Hilarious.
littlewaywelt
10-18-07, 01:02 PM
Yes you did. You know what they say about statistics...
Not even close. See above.
Sorry, equating drunk driving with speeding is just plain silly. No rationalization going on here, just comparing the severity of the transgressions.
It seems that society agrees with me, given the drastic difference between the penalties for each behavior.
It's not a simple fact at all. The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of speeding is victimless, just like some (most?) drunk driving is victimless.
Nice strawman. Sure it is. If the stat is wrong counter it or disprove it. It's that simple.
Most garden variety speeding, like Mr. Jones driving 45 in a 35 or the vast majority of cars on a typical California freeway that are exceeding the speed limit, is not equivalent to drunk driving and that's the reason that the penalties are different.
Of course you are assuming that Mr. Jones can actually handle 45 in a 35... or is he really already beyond his limits and just doesn't know it yet. Can he really see beyond that next curve and foresee that he can stop in the distance that he can actually physically see, should there be for instance a cyclist in the middle of the lane ahead, or perhaps a child chasing a ball?
Perhaps Mr Jones has a performance vehicle, and his reaction times are such that he can hit the brakes in a 1/10th of a second, and his vehicle has a stopping distance far less then 80 feet at 45MPH, as he rounds those bushes and notes the child ahead in 90 feet, and indeed the new pavement is dry. Good.
But is this really the case for all the Mr Jones' out there who habitually feel quite comfortable driving daily at 45MPH in a 35... and by extension raising the speed limit on that stretch of roadway?
What is the condition of the tires on all the other Mr Jones' cars? What about that crumbled pavement, and the slightly damp road, and when did Mr Jones have his brakes serviced last? Or are they making that annoying squealing sound for yet another week? And yet... 45 in a 35 is typical, and likely not enforced. And who knows, next year some road engineer does a survey and the new speed "limit" becomes 45, and Jones, with the worn tires... he now does 50. And uses a cell phone....... to text message.
littlewaywelt
10-18-07, 01:12 PM
No strawman, just facts. The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of speeding is victimless, just like some (most?) drunk driving is victimless.
Nah, it looks like you've been for a while, considering your "hate all bmw drivers" silliness earlier in the thread.
facts? disprove the facts I stated re fatalities. You can't or won't so you latch onto the "victimless" rationalization. Weak.
littlewaywelt
10-18-07, 02:09 PM
Sorry, not interested in doing that much research right now. If you can't see the potential holes in those statistics (not facts) and/or not understand how underlying data can be manipulated to achieve a desired result then so be it. I'm not interested in helping you work through those concepts.
It's not a rationalization, nor was I the person that brought up the "victimless" aspect. That person would be you. You made a silly claim about speeding not being victimless. There are examples all around you, and I, and anyone that uses the roads that disprove your silly contention that speeding is not victimless.
Is it a general cite? Sure, but if you aren't going to systematically critique it then don't make generalizations about the data. The data still stands.
I stated "the simple fact is that everyone thinks speeding is victimless. It's not" If you think speeding is victimless you're kidding yourself.
Speeding kills. If you can't acknowledge that you have a serious lack of judgement.
Sir Bikesalot
10-18-07, 02:24 PM
Driving impaired--drunk, stoned, distracted, or just being in a real hurry--increases risk behavior such as speeding, swerving and reduced reaction time. These are the factors that actually kill and should be focused on. I really don't care why ppl drive unsafely--there are numerous reasons other than alcohol afterall. I care that dangerous driving kills and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
Put it another way. Let's pretend for a moment that alcohol makes ppl drive incredibly slowly and carefully instead. Would it still be illegal? Probably not, because the driver is not engaging in dangerous driving behavior. But of course, alcohol doesn't have that effect. It makes ppl speed and drive erratically. That's why we don't like drunk drivers--because they speed and do other dangerous things, not because they're drunk. So if you speed in the absence of being drunk, I don't like you either.
littlewaywelt
10-18-07, 02:31 PM
Statistics differ from data. Google is your friend on that subject.
It's a generalization.
As I pointed out above, all speeding isn't victimless. The evidence is all around you.
Duh, some speeding kills, obviously. It's just as obvious that the vast, vast, vast majority of speeding does not kill.
Get it?
And yet we come back to speeding being responsible for or contributing to ~30% of fatalities. You dismiss it in the earlier post, which again, is rediculous. If you can't see that I feel sorry for you.
You sound like a guy who thinks it's his right to drive at 80mph.
I hate jumping in on a good flame war, but I'm with Pete on this one.
Comparing one specific example (50 in a 15 school zone) to a broad category (drunk driving) does not equate and is a poor comparison at best.
No one is disputing that speeding can and does kill (or that 50 in a 15 school zone is dangerous) but what would be MUCH more telling is the ratio of deaths per miles driven drunk per year vs deaths vs miles driven while speeding. If you want to clarify even farther to speeding of 10+ mph or more, then fair game, but I would think you would have to increase the bac in the control to a somewhat equivalent level.
My guess is that the rate of deaths related to drunk driving is much higher than the rate of deaths related to speeding, when you factor in how often each offense occurs. It's like the silly statistic that 60% of all car-wrecks (or whatever) happen within 5 miles of home, even though something like 90% of all miles driven are within 5 miles from home. Cherry-picked stats hardly, if ever, tell the whole story.
If you were to ask me while riding or driving on the road, if I had a choice between being passed by a speeder or a drunk, I'll take a speeder 100% of the time, and I'm willing to bet 99% of people on here would as well, which (while not empirically significant) tells you all you need to know about the differences in the offense.
(I won't even get into my rant about how road speeds are set fairly arbitrarily without any real satisfactorily hazard assessment being completed...)
Sir Bikesalot
10-18-07, 03:01 PM
I do know that it's quite easy, and common to drive 80 mph, victimlessly.
Whether or not there's a victim is not the correct metric. It's the increased probability of something bad happening. Speeding is inherently riskier because it reduces reaction time. You can always find a road where it may be ok to go 80mph, but then again you could find someplace to drive drunk without consequence also. Doesn't change the fact that both are inherently dangerous and should be prosecuted severely.
BTW, I don't find your "everyone else is doing it" argument very convincing. I wouldn't necessarily say nonsensical though, but only because I'm not an a**hole.
zeytoun
10-18-07, 03:03 PM
I'd rather have a competent, attentive speedster pass me then a drunk, a cell-phone user, or even a law abiding person who lacks driving skills any day.
I'd rather have a competent, attentive speedster pass me then a drunk, a cell-phone user, or even a law abiding person who lacks driving skills any day.
We all would, but if that ever happens, I'll let you know. :p
zeytoun
10-18-07, 03:10 PM
Speeding is inherently riskier because it reduces reaction time.
It's all relative, and depends on the reaction time of the person to begin with. Not everyone is an equal driver. If a person is a much better driver, with a well-tuned car, then even the reduced reaction time of driving faster is not necessarily as big of a factor as those skills and experience in determining risk.
See the autobahn.
zeytoun
10-18-07, 03:10 PM
We all would, but if that ever happens, I'll let you know. :p
We can dream ;)
Sir Bikesalot
10-18-07, 03:14 PM
If you were to ask me while riding or driving on the road, if I had a choice between being passed by a speeder or a drunk, I'll take a speeder 100% of the time, and I'm willing to bet 99% of people on here would as well, which (while not empirically significant) tells you all you need to know about the differences in the offense.
Totally depends on the road conditions, speed limit, how much over speed limit, how drunk the person is, daytime vs nighttime, etc. I'm sure I can come up with realistic and common scenarios where ppl here could vote both ways. What we can agree on is that both are dangerous. What I'm contending further is that in a lot of cases, they are equally dangerous and equally deserving of severe punishment.
My previous point with the school zone scenario is that a drunk driver who may break a traffic law (but is not doing so at the moment) is as dangerous as a speeder who is definitely breaking one.
Edit: I should say moving violation instead of traffic law, since drunk driving itself, even in the absence of a moving violation, is illegal.
Doesn't change the fact that both are inherently dangerous
Bikes - I think this is the basis of the argument.
If you are saying that speeding is inherently risky, are you also implying that driving at the speed limit is not? I would challenge that the risk is present whenever you are in a motor vehicle, and yes certain activities (under the influence, speeding, cellphones, radio, other passengers, rain, snow, etc.) increase the risk of said behavior.
I think the challenge is that the risk in drinking goes up exponentially faster than the risk associated with speed, all other things being equal.
If you argue at increasing rates of speed, rather than the legally defined speed limits, I may give that a bit more weight, but again, I think most speed limits are rather arbitrarily assigned. So I think as you increase BAC from 0.0 (not drunk) the risk goes up quite fast, where as you increase speed from 55mph (or whatever - not speeding) I don't think the risk goes up near as fast. Once you are at 20+ mph over the speed limit, that may be as risky as driving .08, but driving 1mph over, while technically speeding, is not.
Totally depends on the road conditions, speed limit, how much over speed limit, how drunk the person is, daytime vs nighttime, etc. I'm sure I can come up with realistic and common scenarios where ppl here could vote both ways. What we can agree on is that both are dangerous. What I'm contending further is that in a lot of cases, they are equally dangerous and equally deserving of severe punishment.
My previous point with the school zone scenario is that a drunk driver who may break a traffic law (but is not doing so at the moment) is as dangerous as a speeder who is definitely breaking one.
Agree! We are both saying then that the other factors play into the danger of the situation, so that's where blanketely saying they are "equal" is getting reaction, when you could say both are risky and we'd probably all agree and go home happy.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.