Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: diana g who wrote (78056)	11/7/2000 9:47:50 AM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

OT OT Diana, Nice to hear from you. Actually, most enforcement people know that the vast majority of accidents are not caused by drinking and driving, nor by kids speeding or old folks with age impairment. The vast majority of accidents are caused by (drum roll, please) (are the self-righteous among you ready?) Sleep Deprivation. Yes, that's right, the electric light bulb, television, computers, caffeinated drinks, a go-go, never say stop world which keeps us over stimulated and under rested has almost everyone functioning with a sleep debt, all the time. When you read about an accident on I-5 or I-95 and the police report says so-and-so "lost control" or "inexplicably crossed the median" or "somehow crossed onto the shoulder of the road," if there's no mention of alcohol, drugs or velocity (which there isn't, 99 percent of the time) then, voila, you've got sleepy head accidents. If we really want to control some of the 50 or 60 thousand traffic fatalities a year in this country, we might start by turning off the electricity from 11 pm to 6 am and forcing people to get more than 4-5 hours of sleep. Of course then, a la the New York blackout in 1968 (?), we'd probably have a population boom.

To: diana g who wrote (78056)	11/7/2000 9:59:17 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Hi diana g, >>Imho there is a failure to properly relate the concepts 'blood alcohol content' and 'degree of impairment<< Unfortunately a standard is the best mechanism we have for fairness. >>And it seems obvious to me that many people who are regular drinkers are quite competent drivers after a few drinks<< Better at masking drunkenness. Reflex tests show that 'regular' drinkers are in fact impaired much sooner than they realize. >>Also, other factors such as fatigue, prescribed medications, etc, can also have a great effect on a person's ability to drive safely.<< Correct and should be penalized. cf: long haul drivers. >>---I personally don't care what the cause of impairment is of the impaired driver who puts me at risk, and I don't believe that Draconian punishments for lower + lower blood alcohol levels will make the roads safer. << Agree 100%. It is the perception of the risk of getting caught that matters far more than raising the stakes. As in any crime if you don't think you'll get caught ...... all JMVHO regards Kastel

To: diana g who wrote (78056)	11/7/2000 10:49:05 AM
From: joelnevison	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

<<Off Topic>>> DUI/DWI diana g writes: I believe that people's ability to function at .1% or .08% varies widely. Individuals inherently have different tolerances to alcohol. And it seems obvious to me that many people who are regular drinkers are quite competent drivers after a few drinks, whereas others who don't drink regularly (like me) are likely to be impaired at much lower alcohol levels. This is fallacy Diana. Studies have shown degradation of measurable reactions to be unrelated to the frequency of alcohol use. Yes, some people look like they can hold their alcohol, but their reaction time is affected very much the same as that of a teetotaller. That said, I have driven at moderate alcohol levels and there are things a driver can do to compensate when you know you are impaired: slow down, increase following distance, reduce distractions (music etc), pay attention. -Joel