What happened with Patty Wagstaff?

Ooo Jesse & John T... don't being FACTS into the equation... remember we just want to condem around here. :rolleyes:

I mean really we just want to burn a few people at the stake and condem them as worthless regardless.:nonod:
 
Last edited:
jtheune said:
While doing a little surfing for facts for this reply I found that according to the NHTSA speed was a factor in the same percentage as fatal accidents as achcol ( ~30% for each ) What I find interesting is the relative outrage and bashing difference between the 2 crimes. While I also do not think drinking and driving is a good idea, I question how those laws are created and enforced and what the true effectiveness of them is vs the other risk factors in driving.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the question which will answer your question is, "What percentage of drivers who speed have fatal accidents compared to the percentage of drivers who are over the alcohol limit who have fatal accidents?" I suspect that drivers who are over the alcohol limit are far more likely to kill someone than drivers who are merely over the speed limit.
 
Ron Levy said:
Perhaps the question which will answer your question is, "What percentage of drivers who speed have fatal accidents compared to the percentage of drivers who are over the alcohol limit who have fatal accidents?" I suspect that drivers who are over the alcohol limit are far more likely to kill someone than drivers who are merely over the speed limit.
Click to expand...


High speed driving that results in a crash is more likely to be fatal, given F=m*a.

Drunk driving may be fatal, depending on the circumstances. Drunks ordinarily drive slower than normal because their observe-orient-act cycle is impaired.

Fatality rates are not the right measure -- it's truly apples to oranges.

Unless you know the number of drunk drivers and the number of speeders and then compare collision and fatality rates, you have incomplete data.
 
Missa said:
Ooo Jesse & John T... don't being FACTS into the equation... remember we just want to condem around here. :rolleyes:

I mean really we just want to burn a few people at the stake and condem them as worthless regardless.:nonod:
Click to expand...

I'm all for increasing the penalties for speeding and cell phone talking to match those for DUI/OWI, to address concerns such as yours and Jesse's. :blowingkisses:

No reasonable person in America today can claim with any reasonable amount of credibility that the vast, vast majority of people charged with DUI haven't committed the same crime many times before they lost life's little lottery, any more than they could honestly claim that their last speeding ticket was the first time they ever exceeded the speed limit. If people want to play "my study can kick your study's ass", my Google fu stands ready (within the confines of the work day ;) )

Since no one other than Patty Wagstaff and a circle of her close friends (or bartenders) really knows in the present case being discussed, I'd say my opinion counts about as much as yours. But I'd wager my retirement fund on it if given the opportunity - it needs the help.

BTW I didn't see Jesse bring any facts into this, just an opinion than my facts are outdated and another opinion that scientific study after scientific study might be in error about whether the .08 standard might be "the one", and a question of whether DUI should have stronger consequences than, say, using a curling iron while driving. All good questions.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
I'm all for increasing the penalties for speeding and cell phone talking to match those for DUI/OWI, to address concerns such as yours and Jesse's. :blowingkisses:

No reasonable person in America today can claim with any reasonable amount of credibility that the vast, vast majority of people charged with DUI haven't committed the same crime many times before they lost life's little lottery, any more than they could honestly claim that their last speeding ticket was the first time they ever exceeded the speed limit. If people want to play "my study can kick your study's ass", my Google fu stands ready (within the confines of the work day ;) )

Since no one other than Patty Wagstaff and a circle of her close friends (or bartenders) really knows in the present case being discussed, I'd say my opinion counts about as much as yours. But I'd wager my retirement fund on it if given the opportunity - it needs the help.
Click to expand...

Equating cell phone use with drunk driving is ludicrous.

(I'm not picking on you, but this logic is being used with increasing frequency).

I can drive, navigate, talk, and eat a pretzel quite safely, thank you, and have since I first had a non-hands-free cell phone back in the mid-90s.

I also ride motorcycle at high rates of speed 2-3 times a week 47 miles one way to work and 47 back.

I pass many, many people reading books, maps, magazines, applying various cosmetics, staring at and arguing with passengers, and being otherwise very distracted.
 
alaskaflyer said:
I'm all for increasing the penalties for speeding and cell phone talking to match those for DUI/OWI, to address concerns such as yours and Jesse's.
Click to expand...
Brilliant. There is a balance between freedom, risk, penalty, and safety. As a society we're giving up way too much for unjustified levels of safety.

Do I think that there should be DUIs? Yes. Do I think that the penalties should be severe? Yes. Do I think it should happen at .08BAC when many folks are hardly influenced at that level? No. The level of influence is no greater than all the other influences.
 
jesse said:
Do I think that there should be DUIs? Yes. Do I think that the penalties should be severe? Yes. Do I think it should happen at .08BAC when many folks are hardly influenced at that level? No. The level of influence is no greater than all the other influences.
Click to expand...

Sezwho?

And what are these "severe" penalties?
 
jesse said:
Brilliant. There is a balance between freedom, risk, penalty, and safety. As a society we're giving up way too much for unjustified levels of safety.

Do I think that there should be DUIs? Yes. Do I think that the penalties should be severe? Yes. Do I think it should happen at .08BAC when many folks are hardly influenced at that level? No. The level of influence is no greater than all the other influences.
Click to expand...

Government doesn't do well with case-by-case judgement.

The lower and lower limits are a reaction to the bad ole days when the local LE looked the other way as the bodies were being extricated from the wreckage.

"Drunk? Nah -- I know Billy, he's a very safe driver... musta been that patch of ice there..."
 
If I were to try to drive at a .08 BAC, I would very likely not make it very far. I'm almost 200 lbs and a very cheap drunk.

Should we divide the current BAC by the number of drinks that the defendant admits drinking on a daily basis, and use some resulting index figure adjusted for alcohol tolerance as the legal limit? Should alcohol abusers be "handicapped" for their alleged tolerance to the substance?
 
alaskaflyer said:
If I were to try to drive at a .08 BAC, I would very likely not make it very far. I'm almost 200 lbs and a very cheap drunk.

Should we divide the current BAC by the number of drinks that the defendant admits drinking on a daily basis, and use some resulting index figure adjusted for alcohol tolerance as the legal limit? Should alcohol abusers be "handicapped" for their alleged tolerance to the substance?
Click to expand...
I don't think such a law would make it past the "equal protection" clause. In any event, I don't think there's any solid research or agreement in the medical/physiology world that an alcoholic with a 0.08 BAC can drive any better than a teetotaler with the same BAC.
 
dmccormack said:
Equating cell phone use with drunk driving is ludicrous.

(I'm not picking on you, but this logic is being used with increasing frequency).

I can drive, navigate, talk, and eat a pretzel quite safely, thank you, and have since I first had a non-hands-free cell phone back in the mid-90s.

I also ride motorcycle at high rates of speed 2-3 times a week 47 miles one way to work and 47 back.

I pass many, many people reading books, maps, magazines, applying various cosmetics, staring at and arguing with passengers, and being otherwise very distracted.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's all that ludicrous. I see people talking on phones, eating pretzels, reading books, posting on internet forums and drinking beer while driving all the time. Some can do any reasonably well, some can do none without providing a serious risk. Personally, I think texting while driving is even more distracting than talking.
 
50,000 Americans die each year from auto crashes. The one thing that has affected that number the most is the price of gas. Low price of fuel = more deaths, high price of fuel = fewer deaths. Seems to me if everyone is worried about saving lives slap a $1.00 a gallon tax on fuel. If you are interested in getting drunks off the road make the punishment life in prison without the posibility of parole. Other than that we are going to live with, and kill 50,000 Americans a year, no matter what we do.

Since the common flu kills 37,000 a year, I'd say the number killed in auto accidents is reasonable.

Spare me the "My brother's ex-wife's, mother in law's boyfreind, died in a car accident and you offended me." crap. While I do feel for people who are affected by accidental deaths, it is a part of life.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
50,000 Americans die each year from auto crashes. The one thing that has affected that number the most is the price of gas. Low price of fuel = more deaths, high price of fuel = fewer deaths. Seems to me if everyone is worried about saving lives slap a $1.00 a gallon tax on fuel. If you are interested in getting drunks off the road make the punishment life in prison without the posibility of parole. Other than that we are going to live with, and kill 50,000 Americans a year, no matter what we do.

.
Click to expand...

So, the price of fuel is the ONLY thing that affects the number of deaths each year?
 
Geico266 said:
Other than that we are going to live with, and kill 50,000 Americans a year, no matter what we do.

Since the common flu kills 37,000 a year, I'd say the number killed in auto accidents is reasonable.

Spare me the "My brother's ex-wife's, mother in law's boyfreind, died in a car accident and you offended me." crap. While I do feel for people who are affected by accidental deaths, it is a part of life.
Click to expand...

+1 ...
 
Henning said:
I don't know if it's all that ludicrous. I see people talking on phones, eating pretzels, reading books, posting on internet forums and drinking beer while driving all the time. Some can do any reasonably well, some can do none without providing a serious risk. Personally, I think texting while driving is even more distracting than talking.
Click to expand...

Yep. When I'm behind or alongside some maroon who can't stay in the lane or maintain a constant speed, or worser, just cuts lanes and almost hits me, I see a cellphone at his/her ear.

"HEY! LAY OFF THE HORN! I'M ON THE PHONE!!!!"
:mad3::mad3::mad3::mad3:

It is easier to get around drunks. They're usually driving slow and right.
 
steingar said:
No, I've been told that raising the speed limits from 55mph increased the fatality rate considerably.
Click to expand...

Fatalities decreased every year since sometime in the 50's... Until 2005. So I don't think the speed limit change was a big part of the equation. :no:
 
Geico266 said:
Other than that we are going to live with, and kill 50,000 Americans a year, no matter what we do.
Click to expand...

Bull****.

No matter what "we" do collectively, I'd say you're right. But what "we" do individually could make a huge difference, if only people gave a crap. :nonod:

Spare me the "My brother's ex-wife's, mother in law's boyfreind, died in a car accident and you offended me." crap. While I do feel for people who are affected by accidental deaths, it is a part of life.
Click to expand...

So we shouldn't try to make things better? :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Fatalities decreased every year since sometime in the 50's... Until 2005. So I don't think the speed limit change was a big part of the equation. :no:
Click to expand...

According to what appeared to be a well researched article in Car and Driver (admittedly somewhat biased) there was actually a small reverse correlation between speed and highway deaths. Probably too small to be significant but certainly no support of the notion that "speed kills". There are several problems with the common expectation that driving over the speed limit increases the chances for a fatal accident, not the least of which is the rather arbitrary assignment of some speed limits and the extremely inconsistent reporting of speed as an accident cause. It all starts from the very reasonably assumption that if you increase the speed enough, by itself the speed is dangerous but like so many safety thresholds there's little if any evidence that driving a little above the limit is proportionally less safe as driving way over the limit. In many cases I believe one could statistically prove that by driving 10-20 mph faster on a long freeway trip, the drive would be safer due to the decrease in fatigue. Then there's the little issue of what a "safe" speed is and how much it varies with road conditions, tires/vehicle, and driver competence/attention.

I can say that during the 15 or so million miles I've driven I can't think of a single instance where my speed increased my risk enough to measure even though I habitually drive 10-15 mph above the posted limit when conditions and traffic allow it. I'm not claiming I never took unnecessary risks while driving, just that had I never exceeded a speed limit I wouldn't have avoided any risks beyond a citation or two.
 
gismo said:
According to what appeared to be a well researched article in Car and Driver (admittedly somewhat biased) there was actually a small reverse correlation between speed and highway deaths. ...
Click to expand...

There's more danger in the speed DIFFERENCE with lack of lane discipline in the U.S. The Yupster going 98 in his Bimmer comes up on ol' silver hair doing 45 in the left lane....or Mr. Important suddenly just steers left in front of him as he talks on the phone held to his ear.

It works with NO speed limit on the German autobahn because drivers stay out of the left lane...and yield to faster cars.
 
Once again, the government cannot make you safe from criminals (in this case drunk drivers and/or speeders). It just can't. You really want to be safe, stay at home. Otherwise you will experience some risk. Welcome to the human race.
 
I am an old county coroner doc... I cannot stand drunks... Just being in the same room with them makes my skin crawl...
I didn't start out that way, but after enough years of pronouncing folks dead with their chest crushed and mangled limbs, and especially kids, then walking over to the drunk that hit them who is running his slobbering mouth how it wasn't his fault, made me that way...

And those of you bragging how at 0.08 you are just as good as sober, are delusional...
By 0.02 your reaction times have slowed about 10%...
By 0.04 your judgment is impaired (you think you are fine)...
At 0.08 your reaction time has slowed by 100%, from 1.5 seconds to 3.0 seconds in a standardized simulator - and you think you are ten feet tall and bullet proof...

denny-o
 
steingar said:
Once again, the government cannot make you safe from criminals (in this case drunk drivers and/or speeders). It just can't. You really want to be safe, stay at home. Otherwise you will experience some risk. Welcome to the human race.
Click to expand...

Does that mean we shouldn't try to stop alcoholics like Wagstaff from putting innocents at risk, and should just sit around and say "Well, good for her, she's just expressing herself, and besides, she does good things for aviation!"
 
SkyHog said:
Does that mean we shouldn't try to stop alcoholics like Wagstaff from putting innocents at risk, and should just sit around and say "Well, good for her, she's just expressing herself, and besides, she does good things for aviation!"
Click to expand...

Since I can reasonably argue that if you get in a car as the driver and turn the key you are putting others at risk shouldn't we outlaw moder ntransportation and go back to horse drawn carraiges.

There were no AUTO FATALITIES in 1876.
 
RMCN172RG said:
Since I can reasonably argue that if you get in a car as the driver and turn the key you are putting others at risk shouldn't we outlaw moder ntransportation and go back to horse drawn carraiges.

There were no AUTO FATALITIES in 1876.
Click to expand...

Right, because driving and driving drunk are exactly the same, and both convey the exact same amount of danger to others.
 
SkyHog said:
Right, because driving and driving drunk are exactly the same, and both convey the exact same amount of danger to others.
Click to expand...

How many people die in auto accidents not related to drinking best I can find.

2007 13,000 deaths attribited to drunk driving

2005 ~39,000 accidents total killed ~43,400 including car occupants and non motorists.

Seems that non drinkers kill more people so they are more dangerous, right?
 
jtheune said:
While doing a little surfing for facts for this reply I found that according to the NHTSA speed was a factor in the same percentage as fatal accidents as alcohol ( ~30% for each ).
Click to expand...

Perhaps because all those drunk drivers were speeding! :nono: :mad3: :nono:
 
RMCN172RG said:
How many people die in auto accidents not related to drinking best I can find.

2007 13,000 deaths attribited to drunk driving

2005 ~39,000 accidents total killed ~43,400 including car occupants and non motorists.

Seems that non drinkers kill more people so they are more dangerous, right?
Click to expand...

God I wish we were in the spin zone right now, so this post could be called for what it is....

Instead: You're right. I was wrong, and in fact, lets all go get ****faced and drive around! Its safer than driving sober, RMCN172RG said so!
 
SkyHog said:
God I wish we were in the spin zone right now, so this post could be called for what it is....

Instead: You're right. I was wrong, and in fact, lets all go get ****faced and drive around! Its safer than driving sober, RMCN172RG said so!
Click to expand...
Statistics never lie :D
 
flyingcheesehead said:
So we shouldn't try to make things better? :dunno:
Click to expand...

At what cost though? In everything there is a point of diminishing returns where the cost of any increase in gain rises exponentially to the gain. There are 6.68 BILLION people on the planet, over 330 million of them in this country. If we lose 50,000 a year, that's what, around one and a half hundredths of a percent of the population? Please, we lose more than that to slip and falls. Our society keeps seeming to fail to recognize that we will all die. We are so afraid of dying, we forget to live.
 
Dr. O said:
And those of you bragging how at 0.08 you are just as good as sober, are delusional...
Click to expand...
We're not saying that we're sober at 0.08BAC. All I was saying is that there are common distractions that influence you just as much as .08BAC does.
 
Henning said:
At what cost though? In everything there is a point of diminishing returns where the cost of any increase in gain rises exponentially to the gain. There are 6.68 BILLION people on the planet, over 330 million of them in this country. If we lose 50,000 a year, that's what, around one and a half hundredths of a percent of the population? Please, we lose more than that to slip and falls. Our society keeps seeming to fail to recognize that we will all die. We are so afraid of dying, we forget to live.
Click to expand...

So...what are the positive societal benefits that we are missing out on by outlawing drunk driving :dunno:
 
SkyHog said:
God I wish we were in the spin zone right now, so this post could be called for what it is....
Click to expand...
Well according to Chuck threads like this should perhaps be moved to the SZ

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=444669#post444669

Greebo said:
One day you'll get the definition of what SZ is for right...

Non-Aviation Political and Religious topics are automatically SZ. That does not constitute the limit of SZ's intent.

This thread, for example, with the level of heated debate, is rapidly becoming SZ fodder.
Click to expand...

I say ask the MC to move it. See if they will do it. Worst they can say is no.
 
jesse said:
We're not saying that we're sober at 0.08BAC. All I was saying is that there are common distractions that influence you just as much as .08BAC does.
Click to expand...

Difference is between distracting and disabling. A phone is a distraction and can be eliminated at a moments notice. Alcohol is disabling and requires time to overcome.
 
alaskaflyer said:
So...what are the positive societal benefits that we are missing out on by outlawing drunk driving :dunno:
Click to expand...

The question is "What constitutes drunk?" If we take it down to .04, anyone who goes out and has a beer or glass of wine with dinner is liable to get a DUI on the way home, so that would introduce a huge cost on society (good restaurants have a hard time surviving without alcohol, I like to have an Ichi Ban with my sushi, lots more DUIs issued) for a dubious level of benefit. The point of diminishing return point of BAC v. Ability is the question in this matter. Personally, I think they got it pretty right with a .08.
 
alaskaflyer said:
And then someone who is latex sensitive dies of anaphylaxis, and we're back to being jackbooted thugs for not shooting them with a jacketed hollowpoint.
Click to expand...
Actually that device you mentioned is latex-free. ;) I've seen it in use during a test and asked exactly that question.

However, I believe that the vast majority (probably 95%) of people who get shot or tazed probably get what is coming to them. In fact, I think it you resist a cop with his weapon drawn, that's a pretty good indication you NEED to have your ass tazed or your face introduced to the asphalt as a way of inducing a basic level of respect for authority that is severely lacking in this nation. I'm sorry to the bleeding hearts out there, but a gun pointed at your head and a shouted warning to stop doing whatever you are doing is more than sufficient CYA for the LEO. I am the last person a personal injury attorney would want on the jury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top