Who's at fault?

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...

I guess it would depend on the circumstances. Ie. Who crossed into the other lane... who made an illegal turn, etc.

If they're somehow equally at fault (Both merging into the middle lane
at the same time for example), I would say the drunk driver is
responsible.

Addicted to Morphine said:
I guess it would depend on the circumstances. Ie. Who crossed into the other lane... who made an illegal turn, etc.

If they're somehow equally at fault (Both merging into the middle lane at the same time for example), I would say the drunk driver is responsible.

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?

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.

fishy said:
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.

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.

They are both guilty but the driver talking on the phone while
driving is guiltyer than the drunk one since he was sober and aware of
the fact that he was breaking one of the most important rules of
driving: "KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE f**kING WHEEL". The drunk driver, not
being sober, might have not been even aware of what he was doing, IMHO.

Andrei said:
They are both guilty but the driver talking on the phone while driving is guiltyer than the drunk one since he was sober and aware of the fact that he was breaking one of the most important rules of driving: "KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE f**kING WHEEL". The drunk driver, not being sober, might have not been even aware of what he was doing, IMHO.

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?

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 :/

50%/50% maybe.

Leperous said:
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 :/

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.

The drunk driver is more at fault because he should never have got onto the car to start with.

Adam Hawkins said:
The drunk driver is more at fault because he should never have got onto the car to start with.

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.

I'm not entirely sure about you, but most people (in general) aren't impaired by having a conversation while driving. While, drinking alcohol is almost guaranteed impairment.

In Beaverton (Oregon) and all of New Jersey, you get fined for being on a HANDSET phone. I know that "they" say that any involvement in a conversation will impair you, but, then why wouldn't they pull someone over for talking to a passenger in their car? It doesn't make sense if both modes of conversation are hands free. With that in mind, you can say that talking on a phone, hands free, while driving has a negligible impairment compared to driving drunk, which can: impair your vision, depth perception, and even reaction time.

Yet, in your specific scenario: it would most likely be whomever caused the accident. You can't assume that because someone was on the phone, they caused the accident and you also can't assume that because someone was drunk, they caused the accident. Because, this is a generality.
However, if it is proven that one individual was drunk, then, justice wise, it would lean towards the "rear end" logic, where it is indefinitely their fault by default.

Let me ask you a more reasonable question:

If there are three cars, two cars are in one lane and the third car is in the lane next to the car in front. Now lets say the singular car cuts off the car next to them (no turn signal, no looking to see if the coast is clear, nothing, just moves into the lane)
Now, if the car in front brakes, hard, to avoid hitting the car that cut them off and in result the car behind them rear ends that car causing the car in front to hit the car that cut them off.

Assuming everyone was not impaired, who's fault is the accident?

You're probably shouting, "The person that cut the car off", however, chances are that an insurance company will go after the person that rear ended the car.

Before, you go, "yeah right", this happened to my dad. He had to take FULL responsibility when he rear ended someone in a similar situation to this.

However, there are other factors, like witnesses, road condition (you may get some slack if there are very bad conditions), etc.

Also, if you want to speak judicially, unless cops are called to the scene of the accident, the drunk driving would mean nothing, because there's no way to prove it. It'd be one persons word against another's. (Injury works the same way)

Anyway, whatever.

Ok. My initial reaction to this was that a person who is drunk driving
is committing a bigger wrong than a person talking on the cell
phone. I've been drunk before. I've talked on a cellphone
before. I've never driven drunk, and I won't. I've talked
on the cell phone while driving before, but never liked it because it
makes me nervous. Obviously with the cell phone your attention is
diverted. You're not focused on steering y<span style="font-family: verdana;">our 3500 pounds of metal going 70 mph, but on the conversation you're having.

"</span><span class="iii-big">A
new study from the University of Utah published in the winter 2004/2005
issue of Human Factors, the quarterly journal of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society, found that motorists who talked on hands-free cell
phones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to
regain the speed they lost when they braked. An earlier University of
Utah study by the same researchers found that drivers talking on
hands-free cell phones were less likely to recall seeing pedestrians,
billboards or other roadside features." </span><span class="iii-big">Source: http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/

However, the same website says: "</span><span class="iii-big">[size=16]<span class="iii-big"><li style="font-style: italic;">An
August 2003 report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety concluded
that drivers are far less distracted by their cell phones than other
common activities, such as reaching for items on the seat or glove
compartment or talking to passengers. The study was based on the
analysis of three hour videotapes from cameras installed in the
vehicles of 70 drivers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. The most
common potentially dangerous activity while driving was "reaching or
leaning? (97 percent of drivers). Cell phone use, at 3 percent, was in
ninth place.

</li>[*] A poll of 650 licensed drivers conducted in December 2003 for
the State Highway Safety Alliance and Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company found that while 77 percent of drivers believe they always
drive safely, 44 percent of the group also admit to being distracted by
using cell phones while driving and 69 percent admit being distracted
by the car radio."</li></span></span>[/size]

<span class="iii-big"><span class="iii-big">So
cell phones are apparently less dangerous than we would all like to
believe. Talking to people in the car, fiddling with the radio,
or leaning across to get out a map (things that I would say everyone
does) are all more dangerous.

What about drunk driving?

When you're drunk the first thing that is impaired is your judgement,
followed by your coordination, awareness, and motor skills.

"</span></span>The sad fact is motor vehicle wrecks are the leading cause of death in
the United States for persons under age 34, according to the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Reports.
Of those deaths, more than 40 percent are alcohol-related.
Alcohol-related accidents are so prevalent, it is estimated that 40
percent of all persons in the United States will be involved in a
traffic mishap blamed on alcohol at some point in their lives." Source: http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/drive/a/aa070297.htm

I could dig up more sources. But my point is that drinking and
driving is much much more dangerous than cell phone usage.
Furthermore, the ill effects of drinking are hammered into our heads
since the first day of driver's education class. Everyone who
drives drunk knows they are taking their lives into their own hands,
and the lives of others. It's probably one of the stupidest
things a person can do, because when you drive drunk you do so despite
all the warnings. And you can't argue that people make the
decision to drive when they're drunk, because they're drunk, in most
cases they drive drunk because they aren't responsible enough to find a
designated driver, or stay the night, or call a cab. The drunk
driver is more impaired, and because he or she knows full well the
effects of alcohol, I think that they are more guilty and should be
held more responsible than a sober person on a phone.

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.

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.

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.

Addicted to Morphine said:
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.

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?

The drunk driver had the state of mind before being drunk that he should not drive when drunk. The cell phone driver also had the state of mind not to be using a cell phone while driving. Now which is worse? Realising your making a bad desicion while driving or making a bad desicion before you go to drive that will hinder your driving?

satchmo said:
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. :sad:

Spartan said:
The drunk driver had the state of mind before being drunk that he should not drive when drunk. The cell phone driver also had the state of mind not to be using a cell phone while driving. Now which is worse? Realising your making a bad desicion while driving or making a bad desicion before you go to drive that will hinder your driving?

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.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting satchmo</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

It's like saying, which is worse, a rapist or a murderer?

</DIV></DIV>

surely you can come up with a better comparison than this.

</DIV></DIV>

i thought my "what's heavier, a pound of sweets or a pound of used diapers?" was a goodun.

if the driver that's on the phone swerved across the middle of the road and hit the drunk head-on, then the fault is his, and vice versa. if both swerved at the same time in some freakish event and hit each other, then both are equally at fault. fault and responsibility are the same, but often often differ from 'legal' resonsibility. if you're asking who is legally responsible, then that would depend on whatever laws were in place where the accident happened.

tail-ending someone used to be the same here. automatic legal responsibility. the law was changed to take into account arseholes that cut in on you, or brake hard for no reason.

i seen tv prog that showed a german system on the autobans. there was no speed limit at all, so to stop you getting too close to the car in front there was these big long boxes painted on the road. if a car goes into the box before the car in front has cleared it, a camera takes a pic and the law kicks some ass. it looked like a really good way of detering tail-gaters.

for the record, i feel each is equally responsible. the only deciding factor being whom actually set the event into action leading to the wreck.

i am no more apt to blame drunk drivers than i am cell phone users to be honest, but i was curious to see how the mind set was here.

i am a bit surprised to note that some do share my belief that cell phones are indeed accident inducing items, but i was not surprised to note that drunk drivers still take first place.

thats sad really when you consider just how many people use them improperly, and how really few drivers are actually trained to drive. i took a six week intensive course on how to drive. i still feel it should have been longer, but...

anyways. please continue the debate.

/me is off to bed

nite/nite all

A woman goes out in the middle of the night and waits by the road. As a drunk driver approaches, she shines a light in his face, and he hits her. Whose fault is the accident?

The woman's, of course - what was she doing outside the kitchen?

Night Orph.

There are a lot of facts and studies that prove drunk driving is the
number one cause of vehicular deaths. And while I don't doubt
cell phones cause accidents, so do talking to passengers, fiddling with
the radio, and reaching/leaning over to grab something. A study I
cited showed these things to be more of a problem than
cellphones. I think we all notice the oblivious driver with the
cell phone, but we don't really notice all the oblivious drivers out
there who don't really have a visible excuse.

I'm going to open myself up for some flack, but I think that unless
they ban passengers from talking to drivers under all circumstances, I
don't really understand this uproar about cell phones. There have
been studies (like Crono mentioned and are talked about in one of
aforementioned sources) that show handhelds aren't any more dangerous
than hand-free phones. The issue is attention and awareness, not
simply having 1 less hand on the wheel. A distracting
conversation is a distracting conversation, whether it's with someone
on the phone, or someone in the car. I guess the only difference
is that a passenger will scream just before you crash your car.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>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...

</DIV></DIV>

Ok in Texas it is against the law to talk on a cell phone and drive at the same time.. by state law you are required to pull off to answer or talk on your cell phone, unless its a hands free built into the car type phone.

On the other hand it is also against the law to drive while under the influence.

In this cituation both drivers are at fault. I think the Drunk faces a more substanial penelty, because of his impaired mode of being. He faces a DWI, and sever fines and maybe even jail time, and in the state of texas the loss of his licence for 1 year with a $100-$300 fee applied to its renewing.

The Cell phone person would face a couple tickets and a huge insurance penelty for driving with a cell phone.

The answer to your question from a Police point of view, the Drunk would be at fault, it can be more proven in a court of law, where as the cell phone person can put the cell phone in his/her pocket, and can just denigh ever driving while on it.

Moraly - they are both at fault and both breaking the law.

One more fact.. If either hit the other from behind, that person would be the cause. In a Head on collision, see above.. ( the drunk would most likely survive and be blamed ).

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Addicted to Morphine</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Night Orph.

There are a lot of facts and studies that prove drunk driving is the number one cause of vehicular deaths. And while I don't doubt cell phones cause accidents, so do talking to passengers, fiddling with the radio, and reaching/leaning over to grab something. A study I cited showed these things to be more of a problem than cellphones. I think we all notice the oblivious driver with the cell phone, but we don't really notice all the oblivious drivers out there who don't really have a visible excuse.

I'm going to open myself up for some flack, but I think that unless they ban passengers from talking to drivers under all circumstances, I don't really understand this uproar about cell phones. There have been studies (like Crono mentioned and are talked about in one of aforementioned sources) that show handhelds aren't any more dangerous than hand-free phones. The issue is attention and awareness, not simply having 1 less hand on the wheel. A distracting conversation is a distracting conversation, whether it's with someone on the phone, or someone in the car. I guess the only difference is that a passenger will scream just before you crash your car.
</DIV></DIV>

fact: test can be displayed in any light the person taking it wants to.
fact: you can have an accident doing anything while driving, including... just driving.
fact: its completely irrelevant to include "reaching" and "radio adjusting" because they are separate incidents, and not as provable.
fact: you can check a persons air time and determine exactly when they were on it last.
fact: to use a stupid act, to defend another stupid act, is...still stupid.
fact: if you wanted to take attention away from the cell phone issue, wouldn't you concentrate on all the other causes?
fact: being drunk is no more impairing than cell phone use. its just a longer duration impairment.
fact: cell phones kill. i have seen it. in fact, i have seen it more often but it usually only involves the person doing it. directly opposite from drunk drivers. /me wonders why?
fact: cell phones make America far more revenue, it will take far more time to recognize the threat.
fact: you cannot fix something, until you admit its broken.
fact: hands FREE phones cause just as many accidents!

http://www.statehighwaysafety.org/html/state_info/laws/cellphone_laws.html
http://www.geocities.com/morganleepena/
http://www.mrtraffic.com/cellular.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=states+that+currently+have+cell+phone+laws

fact: being drunk is no more impairing than cell phone use. its just a longer duration impairment.

How can you say that's true? When you're drunk you're MUCH more
impaired than when you're on a cell phone. The site where you get
this information claims that : "The risk of having a traffic accident while using a cellular phone
is the same as that while driving drunk (NEJM, 2/13/97)"
What is this NEJM, 2/13/97? Is that a company, a study, or
what? They don't substantiate their claim with anything reputable
or concrete.

fact: hands FREE phones cause just as many accidents!

Which means... it's not the cell phone that's the problem, it's having
a conversation. So why don't we outlaw drivers talking to
passengers?

I say it's both their faults, if one was not drinking you would still
have the guy on the phone, if the guy wasn't of the phone there would
still be a drunk, and would probably still colide, if neither of them
had not been distracted then there's a higher chance they wouldn't have
collided.

For the simple reason that passengers will probably be watching the road as well, unlike someone on the other end of the phone.

But having said that, you should also analyse your "facts" to check whether or not simple conversations in cars cause a similar number of accidents, and I doubt that you can get any figures for that (unlike having phone call logs). But I would guess not, due to the difference in nature between phone and real life conversations, and where your focus lies in both (I personally find that talking on the phone makes me 'unfocus' on things and become less aware of my surroundings, unlike talking to someone in real life).

Both your points are true. I'm going to drop the argument about
cell phones and conversations because it's harder to substantiate.

However, I still believe being drunk impairs your ability to drive more
than talking a cell phone, and drunk driving contributes to more deaths
than cell phones.

Both.

for the moment, i am gonna let this ride because its rapidly turning into a "Me vs. All" thread again. My opinions of driving hazards are not any more popular than most of the rest of my opinions.. i genuinely wanted to have a topic we all could comment on without any fears of repercussions.. i do not feel we have any alcoholics nor chronic cell phone fanatics, so i was hoping no one would be as offended as our last..... topic.

you guys think i am anal about gays, you should see me in something i am really passionate about. :/

this topic, is not a passion, just an annoyance.

I hope you don't think I disagree with you out of principle... its just seems we've fallen on opposite sides on both issues.

I'm not staunchly impassioned either way. It just seems that out
of personal experience I'm more functional and aware on a cell phone
than I am drunk. Besides, I was educated to firmly believe drunk
driving was the stupidest thing in the world. Perhaps they'll
amend driver's ed classes to focus on cell phones as well.

Addicted to Morphine said:
I hope you don't think I disagree with you out of principle...

I do not think you disagree because its me if thats what you are implying. I do however feel that i am not clearly conveying my ideals, cause you are actually using words that prove my point, but you do not seem to clinch on it somehow.

IE you admit that reaching into the glove box is hazardous, and you admit that cell phone use is no worse, but then you say cell phones are not a problem. 3 points of the same triangle, but you keep chopping the top off. it is so confusing talking to you sometimes.

Im not realy Old enough to understand half the stuff that goes on when
it comes to cars and roads etc. But personaly i consider using a
mobiles is more dangerous than drinking beforehand. I say this because
when your "Drunk" so iv ebben told you still keep a relitave amount of
Concerntration on what your doing at that time (and in this case its
driving) unless he was completeley Wreked out of his head then im
supprised he manadged to pull out of where the car started.

To the mobile, wile talking to somone over the phone you do cut out
everything around you. TV, other people surrounding noises etc. So
talking in a car wile driving is more dandgerous than being drunk
(thats what i think)

About the Argument. It is impossable at this time to "realy know" who
actualy cuased the accedent. the likleyness of them both driving
exactly in the middle of the road or swerve into eachover at exactly
the same time is extreemly unlikley. I would say that the person that
makes the first error is the one responsable. As Orph was saying the
person that stops in the middle of the moterway should be the one who
gets the blame. it shouldnt be the person thats behind him that gets
the blame, its not like the car infront slowled down to a stop. he just
"Stops". Making the person behind ram intot the car infront wether he
likes it or not.

I also discussed this with a friend at school yesterday, he also agreed
with me, its the person that makes the first error, becasue the second
person who colides doesnt have enough time to react. I also discusse
dit with anoterh friend who disagrees. saying that wile using a phone
you can see what your doing and you can switch from concerntrating on
the phone to driving, as in being Drunk you just have no controll. a
very fair comment and it keeps me thinking of how things like this will
be delt with in the futre.

Personaly the person on the phone shouldnt be on the phone and the
person Drinking should be driving. One thing gets me going though, what
if the person Talking on the mobile could multi task?, might give a
slightly more biased awnser to what were are "debating"

Well dont have ago with me if i say anything wrong :smile: , im just saying
what i feel in the matter. not taking part in the last debate i tryed
to stay away becasue it got to confusing. but i feel that i may have
said something werth wile.

I do believe thats the longest post you've ever made Pegs :smile:

its a bit confusing, but you obviously put a vast amount of thought into it.

good job. :smile:

Both and neither.

Cassius said:
Both and neither.

Cass, you need to make your avatar animated. add a Dracula hiss, or a Professor Snipe sneer. that would be coolness :smile:

IE you admit that reaching into the glove box is hazardous,
and you admit that cell phone use is no worse, but then you say cell
phones are not a problem. 3 points of the same triangle, but you keep
chopping the top off. it is so confusing talking to you sometimes.

I guess I'm trying to say is that if you agree that reaching into the
glove compartment and cell phones are equally hazardous, then why
aren't you as outraged about people reaching into their glove
compartments as you are about people using cell phones? I think
they are both a problem. People should be sober and should give
their undivided attention to driving. It's the most dangerous day
to day activity that most people partake in. But that being
said, drunk driving is still a deadlier problem (based on
figures).

Providing that no one crossed into anyone else's lane and no one rear-ended anyone else, If it was a head-on, IN the very center of the median, then the drunk driver is at fault.

• Drunk Driving is Illegal in all 50 states
• He should've never got his drunk ass in the car to begin with
• Cell phones do not invariably cause impaired judgement
• cell phones do not invariably cause delayed reactions

Being drunk automatically causes the last two. And i know some smartass is gonna say "Well, I know ppl who've gotten s**tfaced and can still drive WAY better than most ppl i know" But scientifically, if you are ACTUALLY drunk your reactions and judgement are impaired no matter HOW lucky your s**tfaced freinds were at the time.

The reason ppl crash with cell phones is because they're already dumbasses with impaired brains who are trying to text message while driving, or they are some airheaded urban woman talking like "Like, omigawd! I totally told her to do her nails in the OTHER color." and they get all ditzy and run off the road. But alcohol effects even ppl who USED to ahve good judgement before drinking.

and PEGS: in US traffic law, when someone rear-ends someone else, the person in the BACK of the line is "at fault" for ALL the cars. so if there is a line of 20 cars that all have rear-ended eachother and you pull up and run into the last one in line, you are actually at fault and responsible ofr ALL the damages. Sucks, huh?

I feel BOTH are equally to blame. One has has dulled reactions, the other is distracted, I'd trust neither to swerve first.

Personally, I'm of the sadly laughable school of thought which teaches W-A-L-K-I-N-G.

Sounds plausible, but it really, REALLY, is not. Without walking on a
main road (into oncoming high speed traffic, and pushed into the grassy
verge/broken bits of the side of the road) you CANNOT walk between
towns. I tried walking 3 miles there and back between villages (with
low traffic) to my work each day. I went through a pair of boots (they
were ripped and torn to shreds, doing a 30cm wide cross-country) within
the space of 2 months.

The simple question people will ask is "why?" there are buses, taxis
and cars! Am I mad? No, I'm not. Ireland is a tiny country compared to
most, and I feel its a very sad day when I have to pay a fee to go from
A to B (public/private transport both pay in some way or another) when
its an extremely short distance. I smoke 20-40 a day and I can manage
many miles without NEEDING technological crutches.

If you consider how far you can walk by yourself physically, but roads
and the like at least make it difficult and at best, impossible, you'll
find just how tied to technology you are.

When I make this point to people I sound like a madman for even
suggesting that I walk several miles by myself. But the simple question
is WHY THE HELL CANT I? Surely the freedom to go where I please in my
own country without the fear of being killed is covered by some laws?

Providing that no one crossed into anyone else's lane and no one
rear-ended anyone else, If it was a head-on, IN the very center of the
median, then the drunk driver is at fault.

• Drunk Driving is Illegal in all 50 states
  </li>
• He should've never got his drunk ass in the car to begin with
  </li>
• Cell phones do not invariably cause impaired judgement
  </li>
• cell phones do not invariably cause delayed reactions

Being drunk automatically causes the last two. And i know some
smartass is gonna say "Well, I know ppl who've gotten s**tfaced and can
still drive WAY better than most ppl i know" But scientifically, if you
are ACTUALLY drunk your reactions and judgement are impaired no matter
HOW lucky your s**tfaced freinds were at the time.

The reason ppl crash with cell phones is because they're already
dumbasses with impaired brains who are trying to text message while
driving, or they are some airheaded urban woman talking like "Like,
omigawd! I totally told her to do her nails in the OTHER color." and
they get all ditzy and run off the road. But alcohol effects even ppl
who USED to ahve good judgement before drinking.

and PEGS: in US traffic law, when someone rear-ends someone else,
the person in the BACK of the line is "at fault" for ALL the cars. so
if there is a line of 20 cars that all have rear-ended eachother and
you pull up and run into the last one in line, you are actually at
fault and responsible ofr ALL the damages. Sucks, huh?

well said.

IM at Fault.. Its true.. its all my fault. See I had the HAMMER DOWN, I had to be in Tulsa by 8am and it was already seven. Hit a bad patch of Fog on the Will Rogers Turnpike, I hardly noticed the Little Grey car as my trailer tires rubbed the car the wrong way, causing it to swerve to avoid being run down by an 18 wheeler. I guess had the Women driving not been figiting with her 2 kids fighting in the back seat while talking on the phone to her boss, husband whome ever she would of seen me alot sooner and gotten out of the way.. Then there was the drunk coming onto the expressway there and the two cars collided. The FOG Masked my crime.. Im sorry. So now you know who was at fault. :dorky:

Nickelplate said:
Providing that no one crossed into anyone else's lane and no one rear-ended anyone else, If it was a head-on, IN the very center of the median, then the drunk driver is at fault.

• Drunk Driving is Illegal in all 50 states
• He should've never got his drunk ass in the car to begin with
• Cell phones do not invariably cause impaired judgement
• cell phones do not invariably cause delayed reactions

Being drunk automatically causes the last two. And i know some smartass is gonna say "Well, I know ppl who've gotten s**tfaced and can still drive WAY better than most ppl i know" But scientifically, if you are ACTUALLY drunk your reactions and judgement are impaired no matter HOW lucky your s**tfaced freinds were at the time.

The reason ppl crash with cell phones is because they're already dumbasses with impaired brains who are trying to text message while driving, or they are some airheaded urban woman talking like "Like, omigawd! I totally told her to do her nails in the OTHER color." and they get all ditzy and run off the road. But alcohol effects even ppl who USED to ahve good judgement before drinking.

and PEGS: in US traffic law, when someone rear-ends someone else, the person in the BACK of the line is "at fault" for ALL the cars. so if there is a line of 20 cars that all have rear-ended eachother and you pull up and run into the last one in line, you are actually at fault and responsible ofr ALL the damages. Sucks, huh?

How do I make this the Correct Answer? This should be in Gold. =)

Nickelplate said:

• Drunk Driving is Illegal in all 50 states
• He should've never got his drunk ass in the car to begin with
• Cell phones do not invariably cause impaired judgement
• cell phones do not invariably cause delayed reactions

Wrong,wrong, wrong... the impairment begins the second you enter the car.

1) if you are like most drivers the first thing you do is... make sure its turned on.
2) then you must find a place thats within easy reach.. most are so stupid that they actually hold it in the event that someone will call because??? they know its even MORE unsafe to go reaching for a phone.
3) they mount it, via some sort of a bracket on the dash.. these people are far more worried about its location that the cars. :sad:
4) no conversation, whether normal, with people in the car, or via phone is totally benign, BUT conversations with a phone tend to be more focused because people unconsciously realize the person is not there and project themselves. either going to the person, or bring them to them..
5) failing that, they center their attention to the single ear. humans do not do well with only one for some reason, their brains tend to draw to that ear to collect all the input.. look beside you when driving.. see that "glassy, unfocused" driver next to you? they are thinking of something besides driving. it doesn't matter if they currently have a phone or not, they are looking to have an accident.
6) it is impossible to talk on a phone and drive without some level of distraction. perhaps you are god, and you can do 10 or 15 things at once, but there are as many things outside the car, as there are things that you pass each second you move forward.
7) if you think that there is no impairment while talking on a phone and driving.. YOU are the problem on the roads. the people who realize it are the ones less likely to have a wreck.
8} people who have not had an accident while driving and talking on the phone have done so ONLY because every other driver has so far avoided contacting with you. THEY are paying attention to the things you are missing. The wreck occurs when you finally screw up enough that you either hit someone else doing the same thing (being distracted, not necessarily on the phone) or you yourself drive into something stationary.

you want to truly scare yourself, d this.
1) ride passenger and watch someone in YOUR car doing this.. you, if you are really observant will be scared s**tless within minutes.
2) ride passenger and just make note of each car near you. truly watch them.. pay attention to things they fail to do. like no signals, swerving, constant brake action,inconsistent speeds, following to close, hogging the center lane in traffic, speeding continuously.. all these things and more are warning signs. EVEN IF you disagree with me, avoid people doing this because they may be the dumb asses NickelPlate is referring to.

My observations are not some half baked rant, they are from YEARS of driving and noticing things. Avoiding an accident is as much your responsibility as the person being a prick on the roads.

I am working on a million miles i suppose, maybe a bit more, and have had only 2 accidents in all that time. neither were avoidable from my point, yet i was involved. still thats a pretty good record.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I am working on a million miles i suppose, maybe a bit more, and have had only 2 accidents in all that time. neither were avoidable from my point, yet i was involved. still thats a pretty good record.</DIV></DIV>

Orph, I was a Truck Driver, I drove all 50 States and Some Canada. I worked for Swift, and then a local Small time outfit called Star Trucking. So I speak from a Professional Driver point of view as well. I have seen some major crazy stuff.

But from your argument above.. "IT STARTS FROM WHEN YOU ENTER THE CAR" Then everyone that drives a car is at fault reguardless. You dont have to have a cell phone to be distracted.. most cars have radios. Or you could be thinking of this thread while driving to work in the morning and be distracted.

The Way he phrased his last to criteria he is correct...

• Cell phones do not invariably cause impaired judgement
• cell phones do not invariably cause delayed reactions

the Key word here is INVARIABLY, and it was apposed to Drunk Drivers. They are all 4 of the criteria he posted.. where as a Cell Phone Driver or just an everyday driver is not.

You also claim that we are all just stupid idiots..( without saying that outright ) Well As a Parent I can tell you I have masterd the MULTI-TASKING ability very well. I can also rub my belly and pat my head with out much thought.. My Point is, that you know as a rofessional driver that you have to be aware of your gages, whats around you, the CB, and the data strip in most cabs now so the company can keep in touch with you.. and most professional drivers are sleep deprived. And we seem to get from point A to B without much trouble.

Cell Phone Drivers piss me off.. yes they do.. but what pisses me off more is the crazy bitch that decides to put make-up on while cruising the freeway at 70 miles an hour.. I know you have seen them Orph.. then there is the little old person going 30 miles under the posted limit.. God they are a hazard.

For the most part driving is as safe as it can be, while still giving control upto us stupid humens.

But your original Question you asked Was "whos at Fault.." But the question comes up is what were the cermcumstances, how did the accident occure? Was one rearended, was one going faster thean the posted speedlimit? Was the weather bad, what time of day was it..

The Answer to that Question with nothing more than whos at fault.. is more likely the Drunk Driver.

My comment was ONLY about phones because the topic is only about one or the other.

people are suggesting that because other actions cause accidents that this renders phones moot in the discussion. this may be to some degree, but you cannot use a stupid act to justify another stupid act.

according to Webster, invariably does not seem to apply. i thought it did to :sad:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=400 border=0>

<TR>
<TD align=left>One entry found for invariable.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0 valign="top">

<TR>
<TD></TD></TR></TABLE>Main Entry: in?vari?able
Pronunciation: (")in-'ver-E-&-b&l, -'var-
Function: adjective
: not changing or capable of change : CONSTANT

• in?vari?abil?i?ty -"ver-E-&-'bi-l&-tE, -"var- noun
• invariable noun
• in?vari?ably -blE adverb </TD></TR></TABLE>

and to answer your statement, the answer is "Yes" to a degree we all are at fault. most in ways we are not even discussing yet, like "lack of preventative measures" and " education" people just cannot understand how dangerous it is.

but the bottomline is, the impairment does begin the moment you enter the car, baring in mind that the discussion is about "Phones" and "alcohol" ONLY!!

when you insert other variables, no matter how related or prudent, they dilute the topic to a point to where it becomes moot.

if you carry a conversation to a point where all variables conceivable are inserted, we could blame the very sand on the beaches for the silica, or the solar radiation for creating mutant strains of bacteria..

and, my apologies. driving for swift is... you have my sympathies. :sad:

Orpheus said:
My comment was ONLY about phones because the topic is only about one or the other.
and, my apologies. driving for swift is... you have my sympathies. :sad:

First, its cool man. If it is just phones and Drunk Driver nothing else, then 9 out of 10 times, the Drunk Driver will be found at fault. Because we seem to put a bigger blame on someone under the influance of a narcotic than a stupid idiot on a cell phone.

As For the Swift thing.. yeah man, thanks. I Left there truck at a Truck Stop in New Mexico, and grabbed a bus home. They kept saying we'll ge you home, just take this load too.. Then when they would get me home, they would always cut my home time. For every week out you get a day with Swift.. after 8 weeks they gave me four days at home and demanded I get back on the road, gave my wife a ration of kakah when she called and complained.. So I left the truck and game home and told them to stick it.. they can bitch at me, but the wife.. I dont think so. ( Sorry for the off topic reply )

MoneyShot said:
First, its cool man. If it is just phones and Drunk Driver nothing else, then 9 out of 10 times, the Drunk Driver will be found at fault. Because we seem to put a bigger blame on someone under the influance of a narcotic than a stupid idiot on a cell phone.

This is the conventional thinking. Sad but true. "It has to be the drunk because, blah,blah,blah."

The issue truly is, "at the moment of impact, or just before actually, who is at fault"

now i know that with swift you took either defensive driving, or the smith system so you know that in an accident ALL PARTIES are at fault. the problem is deciding degree.

in this case, i say the drunk most likely "caused" the accident somehow by doing the typically drunk/swervy thing and drifted into oncoming traffic. BUT i still hold that if the phone was not in use that the other drive "may have" avoided it.. the problem is deciding if the phone user could have avoided it without the phone being in use.. most drivers killed by drunks are not on a phone anyways.. sadly, many are children not driving at all :sad:

my condolences to the wife, swift should have been more professional.

k, i manadged to follow this untill "swift" can someone explain this to me?