We had this debate over the CB radio on my last run, with no real solution resolved by topics end..
A drunk driver and a driver on a cell phone collide while driving. Who is at fault? Both are driving impaired so how would you determine who is responsible?
discuss...
[addsig]
Why?
there is no proof that alcohol is more debilitating than a cell phone. I have seen people drink a six pack and be s**t faced drunk, and others who drink a 12 pack with no outward signs at all. I have seen people drive and talk on a phone and not maintain their lane for 100 feet, and others who drive for miles with few incidents of note.
i ask you again, why?
[addsig]i do hope your CB has some sort of hands free gizmo, Orph.
AtoM, how can you say if both are equally at fault, then only one is responsible. at fault and responsible are the same thing.
that's like saying you've got a bag of sweets and a bag of used diapers. both weigh the same, but the diapers are heavier.
[addsig]AtoM, how can you say if both are equally at fault, then only one is responsible. at fault and responsible are the same thing.
that's like saying you've got a bag of sweets and a bag of used diapers. both weigh the same, but the diapers are heavier.
course, its semi- hands free.. if you know what a CB looks like you should know that already.
and, your analogy went right over my head. i am assuming you are saying that one has to be at fault. yes this is true to a point, but my point is much more basic. who is responsible for the accident? both are driving impaired. i had an accident once, they claimed i was at fault, but it was clear that i was not responsible. if you want details i can give them to you in a subsequent post, but i assure you that fault and responsible are NOT the same thing.
would you like to reconsider your reply now, or continue along this line of thought? i have proof for my thinking.
[addsig]again i ask, why?
they were both not drunk prior to getting behind the wheel at some point. both knew that they had to drive at some point as well. hence, both premeditatedly drove impaired.
why is the cell phone user more responsible just because of sobriety?
[addsig]Correct me if I'm wrong, but in most US states talking on a mobile phone whilst driving isn't yet illegal, whilst drink driving is- hence, although IANAL, I would guess that the law would come down harder on you for being drunk since you're automatically committing a crime.
Otherwise, I guess it depends on how good your lawyers are, and on the circumstances :/
Otherwise, I guess it depends on how good your lawyers are, and on the circumstances :/
yes, its against the law everywhere to drink and drive. and it is not yet against the law to drive and talk on the cell phone actually either, but thats changing rapidly. many do not realize it yet, but tis true enough.
still my point was not to use the law, but to establish who caused the accident. and why do you feel thus.
[addsig]
it is my contention that neither should the cell phone user if they intended to use the phone.
please explain, how the drunk is "more"
i know this is going in circles, but i know you guys took classes of this type in school.. i want a comparative analysis of why one is more/less responsible. both are impaired.
the accident, although theoretical still occurred in my example, so move forward from that point. you are in charge of establishing who caused the accident.
remember, defensive driving states clearly that "all parties involved are to a degree responsible"
now its up to you, could the driver on the phone avoided the accident if their attention was not on the call? could the drunk have avoided the accident by being less drunk?
to many variable? perhaps, but i think there should be some resolution, and so should you.
[addsig]test # 1, use a landline phone please:
tune a TV set to a talk show you have never seen before, and at the same time call someone on your phone. now, do not cheat, but talk to the person on the phone but you must follow the TV shows conversation. if you are honest, you will either tune out the TV, or tune out the phone conversation, because you cannot talk on the phone and do both. before you say it, its quite hard to do so try it before you say you can easily do both, as i will call you a liar.
secondly, my previous accident that i got told i caused, but was not responsible.
i was in the turning lane getting ready to depart the freeway, as i slowed down a Honda civic swerves suddenly into the exit lane using up my stopping distance in the process. i rear end the Honda.
now, Arkansas law states that he who hits whom in the rear is automatically at fault, in spite of the obvious fact that if the Honda had not taken the space the accident would never have occurred. so i was blamed but not cited.
lastly, 2 years ago i looked up several statistics on accidents. specifically alcohol related vs. cell phone related. the alcohol related ones were easy to locate since EVERYONE assumes that being drunk is far worse and automatically uses it as an example of improper activity. cell phones were a bit harder to find cause people assume that its benign in causing accidents, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
my findings, approximately 150 thousand people were killed that year by drink drivers. I could not obtain any stats on overall accidents caused by drunks.
cell phone accidents were 6.4 million the same year, but here again i could find no stats on deaths caused by the cell phones.
people do not want to know these stats i assume so they do not either exist, or buried deeper than i can locate.
it is my considered opinion, since i do drive for a living that the bigger threat is the one no one wants to see. cell phones are the biggest problem.
please continue the discussion, as i am curious as to how you will continue to blame the drunk drivers as if the phone was not a problem.
[addsig]cell phone accidents were 6.4 million the same year, but here again i could find no stats on deaths caused by the cell phones.
If we can find figures on the number of people killed by drunk driving accidents versus the number of people killed in cell phone accidents, then we can come to some sort of conclusion. It's impossible to come to a conclusion comparing deaths to accidents.
It will come to light soon enough, there are just to many people doing it for any other outcome.
consider, as per your link, there are 170 million cell phone users. the numbers just do not support "safe driving"
another thing to note, insurance companies are getting fed up with paying for all these accidents that no one wants to acknowledge are happening. they will force laws through the system. one currently being implemented by some insurance companies (and yes i know this for fact) if you are involved in an accident, and it is proven that you were on the phone (hands free or hand held) you policy is null and void. you are responsible for your own costs, and the other drivers too cause you are no longer insured.. consequently, you can also be ticketed for not having insurance coverage to boot.
so, get used to it people, the free ride of using phones while behind the wheel, those days are numbered.
[addsig]Both are at fault, if I were the judge. And the severity of the punishment depends on the small details of the circumstances.
It's like saying, which is worse, a rapist or a murderer?
[addsig]
It's like saying, which is worse, a rapist or a murderer?
surely you can come up with a better comparison than this.
rape, although bad has the possibility of closer.. being murdered has zero possibility you will recover. 
both are premeditated actions, you know when you drink you will need to get home. you know that if you leave your phone "on" that someone may call you and you most likely will not ignore the ringer.
[addsig]
