So, everyone is disappointed in Alan now, eh?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, February 14, 2011 18:42
VIEWED: 20575
PAGE 3 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

BYTEMITE

Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:12 PM

I'm really wondering about the passenger here. His decision making may have been impaired, hers wasn't. Why did this even happen?

The soberness kind of bothers me more than the drunkenness. What's the story here? Does she have a condition that makes it so she can't drive? Was Alan ignoring her when she said to slow down? DID she tell him to slow down? Did she know he was drunk? Did she offer to drive?

Two people didn't take responsibility for themselves, and I can't say I fully understand it.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
The blood alcohol level chosen may seem arbitrary, but they had to pick a concrete amount, so it would be a quantifiable thing.

Things can be adjusted to the individual. When it's the individual that needs to adjust, that smells to me like Fascism.
March to the beat, you little wooden soldier, you!
Unless you're in the ruling elite. Cops get to speed all day long. They don't have to signal. They can flash their lights to get through a red light they don't want to wait for. They can drive buzzed 'cause their friends would never bust them for it.

Anyway, kids inexperienced with alcohol & career drunks kill peeps, not the occasional buzzed average dude or dudette makin' it home after a dinner party.

There's a guy where I live, a real dirtbag, killed a kid on the road riding his bike, he was driving real drunk, and this WAS NOT HIS FIRST DRUNK DRIVING INCIDENT. Why was he allowed to have a license at ALL after his first accident?
Now that he's in jail & sober, he's suing the parents for letting their kid ride his bike after dark on a road. It's a real case, ya believe it?
See, it's not the alchohol, it's the a**hole.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm really wondering about the passenger here. His decision making may have been impaired, hers wasn't. Why did this even happen?

I can only assume that in her opinion, Alan seemed okay to drive.
She prolly didn't have a breathalyzer on her.

The laughing Chrisisall

ZEEK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Things can be adjusted to the individual. When it's the individual that needs to adjust, that smells to me like Fascism.
March to the beat, you little wooden soldier, you!
Unless you're in the ruling elite. Cops get to speed all day long. They don't have to signal. They can flash their lights to get through a red light they don't want to wait for. They can drive buzzed 'cause their friends would never bust them for it.

So, you want every decision to be made on an individual basis, but you don't want elitism? Do you actually believe that would ever work?

BYTEMITE

Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:42 PM

I could see that, but when your driver starts going 40 through a 25 mile an hour zone, as a passenger you probably should speak up a little. Speeding through a residential area, even at night when most people are at home can be dangerous.

I've been in a car with a bad driver before, though not a drunk driver, but it was just as dangerous. I didn't realize just how bad of a driver she was in advance, it was the first time I'd ever been in a car with her behind the wheel (but not her first time, I'm not sure how it's possible that she was that bad of a driver). She side-swiped a fire engine at one point (!) and I was suggesting she slow down or even pull over and let someone else in the car pool drive well before she failed to turn properly while getting on an interstate onramp and plowed the car into a concrete barrier. (I even did a little bit of a Mal here, before I was even familiar with the series or movie - *steadily growing alarm* "Could you turn? Maybe turn a little?" *crunch*)

She could have killed someone, she could have killed one of us, I was trying my damndest to be the responsible one to keep that from happening. No one ever listens to me IRL though, my name might as well be Cassandra.

I really hope that was happening here. If it wasn't, then seriously, what the hell.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

So, you want every decision to be made on an individual basis, but you don't want elitism? Do you actually believe that would ever work?

Yeah, it could work, but the system won't allow it.

How about this:
An optional test (you pay for)where you drink 1 beer for every 20 pounds of body weight, then take a driving obstacle course test a normally sober person is able to pass, and if you can pass it, you get a card. If you're pulled over for a tail light or what not, and the officer thinks you've been drinking, he does a breathalyzer test, a which point you present your card. It signifies that you present no extra public danger up to (whatever, 6-8 oz. of alcohol, whatever that reading might be on their doohickey), and then you get a ticket for being buzzed, kinda like a parking ticket.

OOooopps! That's never gonna happen! The municipalities LOVE the income from insane fines!
The insurance companies LOVE the higher premiums!

The laughing Chrisisall

ZEEK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 5:28 PM

That wouldn't prevent your problem with paying money. If the test is optional then you'd have to pay for it and since most driving tests are done on the road this one would likely need an entire facility built and maintained where the test could be preformed without putting the public in danger. So, the fee would likely be huge. Which would then probably fall back on the rich elitist stuff. However, given all that I'd be fine with it. If you can prove that you're a capable driver under those conditions then it's acceptable. My guess is the test would be very strict, very expensive and not result in much of a difference for anyone.

STORYMARK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Disappointed in Alan? No way. If I let scandals, politics, or bad behavior influence my entertainment choices, there wouldn't be much for me to ever see or hear. I do cut actors and actresses some extra slack, especially those that I'm very fond of like Alan.

I personally don't give a flip about the lives of actors or actresses at all. All I care about is their work. If Alan did nothing wrong, good for him. If he did, he should face the consequences. Not slack for being famous.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CHRISISALL

Thursday, February 10, 2011 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
That wouldn't prevent your problem with paying money. If the test is optional then you'd have to pay for it and since most driving tests are done on the road this one would likely need an entire facility built and maintained where the test could be preformed without putting the public in danger. So, the fee would likely be huge.

Existing course, existing facility, same staff. I don't see the extras you list here.

Quote:
If you can prove that you're a capable driver under those conditions then it's acceptable. My guess is the test would be very strict, very expensive and not result in much of a difference for anyone.

True story: Back when I was 19, a group of friends & I went to a race course set up for kids with those little motorized cars on a day when no one was there (it wasn't an official facility; it was set up in abandoned air field with thousands of old tires).
I had my friends drive me there after I guzzled a six pack of beer down in like, 30 minutes.
My friends successfully drove the course at 30 mph, then handed the car over to me. Estimating my reaction time was down a good deal, I drove accordingly, and successfully completed the course (it was real twisty for the tykes, remember). Then we upped it to 40mph, and again, I completed it successfully (but was REALLY concentrating). At 50mph, my friend had a little difficulty, but didn't lose it. At 50mph I slid into a wall of tires (didn't brake fast enough for the turn).
We dug my car out, replaced the wall as was, & came away with some valuable data.
Knowing the limitations of YOUR LIMITATIONS is a good thing.

The laughing Chrisisall

ZEEK

Thursday, February 10, 2011 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Existing course, existing facility, same staff. I don't see the extras you list here.

Every driving test I've ever taken has been on the road. That would never fly as a testing grounds for these types of tests. There would have to be a closed course. Which is not something my local DMV has. That would mean purchasing some property. Building the course. Staffing the facility. Since the tests would basically be designed to fail at some level I'd assume there would be barriers or things getting destroyed on a regular basis. They would likely also need medical staff on the premises during every test as a safety precaution. I'd guess $1000 per test would not be unreasonable.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE