Drunk Driving
#51
Membership Not Required
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: On the road-USA
Posts: 16,855
Bikes: Giant Excursion, Raleigh Sports, Raleigh R.S.W. Compact, Motobecane? and about 20 more! OMG
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times
in
14 Posts
I think this might have been covered earlier, it doesn't matter how many laws or what the BAC is, as long as people continue to drive drunk you will continue to have a problem. Until OUR society becomes one of law abiding citizens instead of one of "what can I get away with", or "I can get off if I get the right lawyer" you are going to have the problem. I do drink occasionally, if I have more than a single drink with dinner, I won't drive and make alternate arrangements. Americans as a whole seem to be some of the most distracted and poorest drivers I have ever seen. Not to say there isn't crazy traffic and drivers in other places. Here in NC we have some decent laws on the books, the police are making the arrests but there are deals being made n the backrooms of the courthouses and habitual offenders get a slap on the wrist and walk. The county next to mine has one of the higher arrests rates but it is the lowest in convictions, so how much good is that doing?
Aaron
Aaron
__________________
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
#52
40 something and counting
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: dallas/ft.worth texas
Posts: 422
Bikes: Colnago,Tsunami, Kestrel, Univega
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by Proximo
If I read this correctly,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content
then a drink containing 1oz of alcohol, or 28 grams, will raise the BAC .03%. If the typical person metabolizes 10 grams of alcohol per hour, then three drinks over an hour will raise the BAC to .08%. So, I stand corrected. Three beers in an hour will get you to .08% if you are the average person. As the article points out, results can vary widely depending on the individual.
It doesn't change the fact that a .08% BAC limit does not take into account individual differences and that there are people with 0% BAC on the road that are more dangerous than many with .08% BAC.
Edit: also, many states (CO being one) have a limit of .05 BAC as legally impaired which carries nearly the same penalty as DUI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content
then a drink containing 1oz of alcohol, or 28 grams, will raise the BAC .03%. If the typical person metabolizes 10 grams of alcohol per hour, then three drinks over an hour will raise the BAC to .08%. So, I stand corrected. Three beers in an hour will get you to .08% if you are the average person. As the article points out, results can vary widely depending on the individual.
It doesn't change the fact that a .08% BAC limit does not take into account individual differences and that there are people with 0% BAC on the road that are more dangerous than many with .08% BAC.
Edit: also, many states (CO being one) have a limit of .05 BAC as legally impaired which carries nearly the same penalty as DUI.
You READ correctly, but a beer does not contain 28 grams of ethanol. Depending on the brand, it has around 12-13 grams only. Ice beers have slightly more, lite beers have slightly less...but NO american beer has 28 grams of ethanol.
Mark
#53
pluralis majestatis
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: you rope
Posts: 4,206
Bikes: a DuhRosa
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 537 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by forensicchemist
You READ correctly, but a beer does not contain 28 grams of ethanol. Depending on the brand, it has around 12-13 grams only. Ice beers have slightly more, lite beers have slightly less...but NO american beer has 28 grams of ethanol.
Mark
Mark
tons of cheap "ice" beer with up to 9% abv... old english 800 ice/high grav, steel reserve high grav,
lots of craft american beers... dogfish head 90 min ipa, new belgium trippel, 1554 black, etc
many seasonals are up to 15, 18% abv. 50+ grams of ethanol
even the watered down mass beers are 4-5%. even beers in UTAH are 13+ grams.
#54
40 something and counting
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: dallas/ft.worth texas
Posts: 422
Bikes: Colnago,Tsunami, Kestrel, Univega
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by redfooj
assumming 1g/ml density, ive had tons of american beers above 28g alcohol per 12oz
tons of cheap "ice" beer with up to 9% abv... old english 800 ice/high grav, steel reserve high grav,
lots of craft american beers... dogfish head 90 min ipa, new belgium trippel, 1554 black, etc
many seasonals are up to 15, 18% abv. 50+ grams of ethanol
even the watered down mass beers are 4-5%. even beers in UTAH are 13+ grams.
tons of cheap "ice" beer with up to 9% abv... old english 800 ice/high grav, steel reserve high grav,
lots of craft american beers... dogfish head 90 min ipa, new belgium trippel, 1554 black, etc
many seasonals are up to 15, 18% abv. 50+ grams of ethanol
even the watered down mass beers are 4-5%. even beers in UTAH are 13+ grams.
Sadly, this is not correct either.
The density of ethanol is only 0.789 g/ml.
The amount of alcohol allowed in a beverage and still retain the name "beer" is defined by federal statute. There is no beer that has 28 grams of ethanol per 12oz
Go read the label of an american beer, either light beer, or Ice beer...you will see its 4.2-4.8% alcohol by volume. Some States are even lower....
Now lets round it up to 5% for easy math. 12 ounces at 5% alcohol equates to 0.6 ounces of ethanol. 0.6 ounces x 28.35 grams/ounce = 17.01 grams x 0.789 (specific gravity of ethanol) = 13.4 grams of ethanol per 12 ounce beer.....and that's on the high side.
As alcohol is my career for some 13 years now, I assure you there is no beer with the alcohol concentration you stated above. Perhaps you are thinking of carbohydrates....?
#55
pluralis majestatis
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: you rope
Posts: 4,206
Bikes: a DuhRosa
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 537 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by forensicchemist
Sadly, this is not correct either.
The density of ethanol is only 0.789 g/ml.
The amount of alcohol allowed in a beverage and still retain the name "beer" is defined by federal statute. There is no beer that has 28 grams of ethanol per 12oz
Go read the label of an american beer, either light beer, or Ice beer...you will see its 4.2-4.8% alcohol by volume. Some States are even lower....
Now lets round it up to 5% for easy math. 12 ounces at 5% alcohol equates to 0.6 ounces of ethanol. 0.6 ounces x 28.35 grams/ounce = 17.01 grams x 0.789 (specific gravity of ethanol) = 13.4 grams of ethanol per 12 ounce beer.....and that's on the high side.
As alcohol is my career for some 13 years now, I assure you there is no beer with the alcohol concentration you stated above. Perhaps you are thinking of carbohydrates....?
The density of ethanol is only 0.789 g/ml.
The amount of alcohol allowed in a beverage and still retain the name "beer" is defined by federal statute. There is no beer that has 28 grams of ethanol per 12oz
Go read the label of an american beer, either light beer, or Ice beer...you will see its 4.2-4.8% alcohol by volume. Some States are even lower....
Now lets round it up to 5% for easy math. 12 ounces at 5% alcohol equates to 0.6 ounces of ethanol. 0.6 ounces x 28.35 grams/ounce = 17.01 grams x 0.789 (specific gravity of ethanol) = 13.4 grams of ethanol per 12 ounce beer.....and that's on the high side.
As alcohol is my career for some 13 years now, I assure you there is no beer with the alcohol concentration you stated above. Perhaps you are thinking of carbohydrates....?
2nd and 3rd are ale beers. yes, beers.
had this thread been here 5 days ago i wouldve given you personal, digital photos.
these are all american beers from my 2 favorite brewers:
https://www.dogfish.com/brewings/Year...A/11/index.htm
9%
https://www.dogfish.com/brewings/Limi...A/15/index.htm
20%
https://www.bellsbeer.com/branddetail.asp?BrandID=12
10%
the last two are at 56g and 28g, respectively. i assure you, theyre highly alcoholic beers.
(sam adams also has a handful 10+.. up to 20+ abv)
perhaps you need to bring those into your lab. what statute in specific are you referring to? in my alcohol drinking career, the only statutes im aware of are state mandated, not federal (with utah and colorado on the short end)
#56
Fat Guy in Bike Shorts!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 630
Bikes: Specialized Allez
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
in a lot of states they stop classifying as beer after a certain point and will then classify as barley wine
#57
40 something and counting
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: dallas/ft.worth texas
Posts: 422
Bikes: Colnago,Tsunami, Kestrel, Univega
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by redfooj
the first list (ice beers) are technically malt liquors
2nd and 3rd are ale beers. yes, beers.
had this thread been here 5 days ago i wouldve given you personal, digital photos.
these are all american beers from my 2 favorite brewers:
https://www.dogfish.com/brewings/Year...A/11/index.htm
9%
https://www.dogfish.com/brewings/Limi...A/15/index.htm
20%
https://www.bellsbeer.com/branddetail.asp?BrandID=12
10%
the last two are at 56g and 28g, respectively. i assure you, theyre highly alcoholic beers.
(sam adams also has a handful 10+.. up to 20+ abv)
perhaps you need to bring those into your lab. what statute in specific are you referring to? in my alcohol drinking career, the only statutes im aware of are state mandated, not federal (with utah and colorado on the short end)
2nd and 3rd are ale beers. yes, beers.
had this thread been here 5 days ago i wouldve given you personal, digital photos.
these are all american beers from my 2 favorite brewers:
https://www.dogfish.com/brewings/Year...A/11/index.htm
9%
https://www.dogfish.com/brewings/Limi...A/15/index.htm
20%
https://www.bellsbeer.com/branddetail.asp?BrandID=12
10%
the last two are at 56g and 28g, respectively. i assure you, theyre highly alcoholic beers.
(sam adams also has a handful 10+.. up to 20+ abv)
perhaps you need to bring those into your lab. what statute in specific are you referring to? in my alcohol drinking career, the only statutes im aware of are state mandated, not federal (with utah and colorado on the short end)
As for testing some in the lab, would love too but I prefer a good cabernet or bourbon...
regards,
#58
Senior Member
I suppose you really have to look it at the way the general public does. A glass with a brownish-yellowy liquid in it that has a head and smells hoppy or yeasty or beery... will be seen as beer irrespective of how it is classified. Least concerned is a drunk person, for whom any drink will do.
It still doesn't get away from the issue -- that drinking alcohol will raise the blood-alcohol content of an individual. Full stop.
It still doesn't get away from the issue -- that drinking alcohol will raise the blood-alcohol content of an individual. Full stop.
#59
40 something and counting
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: dallas/ft.worth texas
Posts: 422
Bikes: Colnago,Tsunami, Kestrel, Univega
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
agreed.....the best advice I offer to anyone and everyone on the subject is that if you've been drinking, just don't drive.....and if you must drive, just don't drink. The cost of DWI is outrageous.....between fines, court costs and lawyers fees can easily top 10K on the first offense......I'm sure eveyone has better uses for that 10K.
Regards and happy biking.....
mark
Regards and happy biking.....
mark
#60
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
In Sweden - where they tie the fine to your income - some rich fella paid 175,000 dollars in fines for one drunk driving incident.
I believe american states could do a LOT more to make drunk driving less of a problem.
special colored liscenses that prevent the convicted drunk from buying booze or buying a car.
Seizing cars driven by drunk drivers and auction them off. no chance to save your car. you lose, and still have to pay the auto loan off.... Personal property is siezed in drug offenses all the time, this harsh penalty could also be applied to drunk drivers.
that 30 days automatic jail time used in Korea, even before conviction in a court of law, would do a lot to deter the crime of drunk driving. You drive drunk, you spend 30 days 'sobering up' while your crime is prepared for the court docket. people can be legally detained and held 72 hours, not including weekends or holidays, even before a crime is charged. this is totally legal in america.
Even under existing legal practices, people just under the suspicion of driving drunk could be held for 3 days, then released without ever being charged with a crime, and this would be totally legal. if someone blows a BAC that is illegal, change the laws to give them 10,20, 30 days hold prior to deciding if charges would be filed.
This would deter drunk driving.
Why NOT make it more unaceptable to drive drunk in the US by significantly increasing the penalties?
I believe american states could do a LOT more to make drunk driving less of a problem.
special colored liscenses that prevent the convicted drunk from buying booze or buying a car.
Seizing cars driven by drunk drivers and auction them off. no chance to save your car. you lose, and still have to pay the auto loan off.... Personal property is siezed in drug offenses all the time, this harsh penalty could also be applied to drunk drivers.
that 30 days automatic jail time used in Korea, even before conviction in a court of law, would do a lot to deter the crime of drunk driving. You drive drunk, you spend 30 days 'sobering up' while your crime is prepared for the court docket. people can be legally detained and held 72 hours, not including weekends or holidays, even before a crime is charged. this is totally legal in america.
Even under existing legal practices, people just under the suspicion of driving drunk could be held for 3 days, then released without ever being charged with a crime, and this would be totally legal. if someone blows a BAC that is illegal, change the laws to give them 10,20, 30 days hold prior to deciding if charges would be filed.
This would deter drunk driving.
Why NOT make it more unaceptable to drive drunk in the US by significantly increasing the penalties?
Last edited by Bekologist; 01-01-07 at 08:17 PM.
#61
pluralis majestatis
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: you rope
Posts: 4,206
Bikes: a DuhRosa
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 537 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by forensicchemist
the brands you cited are not really beers, but part of a closely related group of malted beverages that includes ales, stouts, and porters. The difference between these types and beers is in the brewing process, which does allow for higher alcohol contents. Now if you are not making any distinction between ales, porters, stouts, and are calling them all beers, (as I suspect you are) then you are correct, some would have much higher alcohol contents as compared to what is defined as beer.
not that its relevant, but related to the thread.
as far as the thread pertains: 30 days? a little too much there. current punishment are serious enough to deter anyone thinking reasonably. problem is... when people are actually drunk, their sense of judgement goes out the window.
further, some people operate differently under the influence. there are just as much dangers out there (as pointed out): inattentiveness, drowsiness (done it a few times. really couldve driven better drunk.)
#62
Senior Member
One of the things that also clouds people's emotional views on things like this is the discretion that judges/magistrates have in sentencing. The penalties specified in most laws are "maximum"; it's only recently that in countries such as Australia, that there has been a move to mandatory fixed terms specified in the legislation, mainly because of child-molestation and child pornography cases.
While everyone wants the book thrown at an offender such as a drunk-driver who has killed someone, the system (the laws created by legislators -- the politicians) enable the judge/magistrate to hear mitigtating circumstances that led to the crime, plus character references, even psychiatric assessments. The judge/magistrate then has to weigh all those factors and decide on a punishment that actually does fit the crime -- and if the mitigating circumstances in his/her view are adequate, or the possibility of rehabilitation without jail is good, then a lesser sentence is likely to be imposed. I think the judges/magistrates also look at precedent in sentencing to determine the most appropriate for a set of circumstances.
It does, too often, come down to lies, manipulation and well-crafted (or crafty) submissions by the defence lawyers (although, to be fair to them, they also can only work with what they are told by an offender who may bend the truth to suit their circumstances).
In addition, in Australia, it is not permitted to reveal that a person has a previous criminal record during a hearing or trial, even if it is for serial offences, because that is seen to be an unfair influence on the decision of the judge/magistrate/jury. It may be different in the US and other jurisdictions.
The hurdles continue to mount after the OP's election to office.
There simply is a large degree of inbuilt flexibility in the system, starting with police... who must consider whether the standard of driving in a fatal crash was culpable because of the degree of impairment, or the driving and impairment was only one of a series of factors attributable to both parties that led to the crash. You are unlikely to see a driver charged with murder unless the driver engaged in an action that was deliberately calculated to kill a person.
To me, the system really starts to break down when the lawyers come into it, and the deals they try to do with public prosecutor and judge can result in serial offenders failing to get what they deserve.
It doesn't do the families and friends any good at all -- but the process of change can only happen from the community... who elect the politicians (and in the US, the police chiefs and the judiciary, it seems) who make the laws and set the boundaries in the first place.
We could, of course, just have a computerised conviction system -- feed in the facts of the case, forget that someone might have had one single (life-altering) error of judgment, and is so remorseful that they will never ever offend again -- then print out the ticket that says go straight to jail for the one and only prescribed penalty. Actually, that sort of does happen now with on-the-spot fines, but people often overlook the fact they can go to court and use the same processes of sentencing including mitigation to perhaps decrease the sentence imposed on them compared with the on-the-spot one.
Note: I am not a lawyer, but I have covered enough court cases as a journalist and studied on-going ones to have a reasonable understanding of the processes in Australia. I don't think the principles are too much different in North America. Country courtrooms used to be rife with drink-driving and public drunkeness cases.
While everyone wants the book thrown at an offender such as a drunk-driver who has killed someone, the system (the laws created by legislators -- the politicians) enable the judge/magistrate to hear mitigtating circumstances that led to the crime, plus character references, even psychiatric assessments. The judge/magistrate then has to weigh all those factors and decide on a punishment that actually does fit the crime -- and if the mitigating circumstances in his/her view are adequate, or the possibility of rehabilitation without jail is good, then a lesser sentence is likely to be imposed. I think the judges/magistrates also look at precedent in sentencing to determine the most appropriate for a set of circumstances.
It does, too often, come down to lies, manipulation and well-crafted (or crafty) submissions by the defence lawyers (although, to be fair to them, they also can only work with what they are told by an offender who may bend the truth to suit their circumstances).
In addition, in Australia, it is not permitted to reveal that a person has a previous criminal record during a hearing or trial, even if it is for serial offences, because that is seen to be an unfair influence on the decision of the judge/magistrate/jury. It may be different in the US and other jurisdictions.
The hurdles continue to mount after the OP's election to office.
There simply is a large degree of inbuilt flexibility in the system, starting with police... who must consider whether the standard of driving in a fatal crash was culpable because of the degree of impairment, or the driving and impairment was only one of a series of factors attributable to both parties that led to the crash. You are unlikely to see a driver charged with murder unless the driver engaged in an action that was deliberately calculated to kill a person.
To me, the system really starts to break down when the lawyers come into it, and the deals they try to do with public prosecutor and judge can result in serial offenders failing to get what they deserve.
It doesn't do the families and friends any good at all -- but the process of change can only happen from the community... who elect the politicians (and in the US, the police chiefs and the judiciary, it seems) who make the laws and set the boundaries in the first place.
We could, of course, just have a computerised conviction system -- feed in the facts of the case, forget that someone might have had one single (life-altering) error of judgment, and is so remorseful that they will never ever offend again -- then print out the ticket that says go straight to jail for the one and only prescribed penalty. Actually, that sort of does happen now with on-the-spot fines, but people often overlook the fact they can go to court and use the same processes of sentencing including mitigation to perhaps decrease the sentence imposed on them compared with the on-the-spot one.
Note: I am not a lawyer, but I have covered enough court cases as a journalist and studied on-going ones to have a reasonable understanding of the processes in Australia. I don't think the principles are too much different in North America. Country courtrooms used to be rife with drink-driving and public drunkeness cases.
#63
Senior Member
Originally Posted by wheel
During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2006).
I use the cell phone as an example only because several studies have shown the likelihood of being in an accident while talking on a cell phone is the same as driving at .08. And that's why we punish drunk drivers, not because they did something dangerous with a car, but because they are so much more likely to be in a serious accident.
The TV show mythbusters has a funny experiment where they tested drunk drivers and cell phone talkers on an obstical course. They both did poorly but the cell phone talking did worse.
Cyclists may be more concerned about driving while distracted because we are more likely to be a victim. Most drunk driving takes place at night, especially after midnight, when cyclists usually are not out on the road.
#64
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
I was always intrigued by the idea of having to pass a breath test to be able to start/enter your car. Has anyone's state/province ever took that idea seriously?
See A&S for a thread there on "Cars smarter than drivers."
Last edited by genec; 01-03-07 at 01:00 PM.
#65
Banned.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
I was always intrigued by the idea of having to pass a breath test to be able to start/enter your car. Has anyone's state/province ever took that idea seriously?
#66
Banned.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bannation, forever.
Posts: 2,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
Toyota has a new design on the drawing board that senses alcohol in the sweat of the driver's hands and will shut down the car when alcohol is detected.
See A&S for a thread there on "Cars smarter than drivers."
See A&S for a thread there on "Cars smarter than drivers."
#67
Senior Member
There is always someone cleverer than the designer. See Computers and Viruses.
Again, it's a case of changing community attitudes is too difficult. People might also look to smoking as how community attitudes can change... but unfortunately, there are a LOT more people who drink alcohol than smoke (I think).
Again, it's a case of changing community attitudes is too difficult. People might also look to smoking as how community attitudes can change... but unfortunately, there are a LOT more people who drink alcohol than smoke (I think).
#68
del dot
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Santa Cruz CA
Posts: 211
Bikes: Tour Easy
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by Rowan
Again, it's a case of changing community attitudes is too difficult. People might also look to smoking as how community attitudes can change... but unfortunately, there are a LOT more people who drink alcohol than smoke (I think).
Keep the pressure on for tough drunk driving laws and keep hammering home the consequences of this behavior, and community attitudes will continue to shift away from tolerating drunk driving. At the same time, maybe we can ramp up some of the same social and legal pressure against driving while struggling to stay awake (which I've done, and I realize it was as dangerous and as criminally stupid as drunk driving), while chatting on cel phones, and other predictable and avoidable sources of lousy driving.
Last edited by divergence; 01-03-07 at 06:17 PM.
#69
Pabst Blue Ribbon Lover
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 24
Bikes: 1993 GT Psyclone + 1987 Schwinn Sierra
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I tend to suffer from severe whiskey d#ck, so I've denounced all alchohol