Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Mark Grace on serving time in jail: ‘It’s my fault’

Dutch courage is Grace under pressure.

“In this world of blame game, it’s like Democrats and Republicans blame each other, countries blame each other … (but) I did this,” Grace said Monday after throwing batting practice to Diamondback minor leaguers. “The Diamondbacks didn’t do anything wrong. The cop didn’t screw me. The judge didn’t screw me. The prosecutor didn’t screw me. It’s a lesson learned, and especially out here. These laws out here, they don’t mess around. I knew that.

“You can sit here and make all the excuses you want. But at the end of the day, it’s my fault. I did it, and I’m going to pay my debt to the state of Arizona and be done with it. And it will never happen again. I can promise you it will never happen again, because if it happens again I’m going to prison for like two years, and my children deserve better than that. My friends deserve better than that.

“I’m going to be better for it. It sucks. I’m not going to kid you. But you know what? I’m a big boy, and I always try to teach my kids accountability, so I have to be accountable, too, and accept the fact I made a bad decision and I’m paying the price for it.”

...Grace isn’t sure if he’ll get another broadcasting job but said he enjoys working with young players who need coaching. The hardest part so far has been missing his sons, Preston and 12-year-old Jackson, playing against each other in a youth baseball league game.

Both of the youngsters understand he’s paying a big price for his mistake.

“They know it, they get it and they understand it,” he said. “I’m setting a bad, yet good example for them. If you break the law, you pay the price. ‘Don’t do what Dad did.’”

Repoz Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:13 AM | 329 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cubs, diamondbacks

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 4 > 
   1. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:43 AM (#4386810)
Cactus League or Arizona Penal League, which one has the best slumpbusters?
   2. John Northey Posted: March 12, 2013 at 10:48 AM (#4386843)
Annoying that the article isn't available outside the USA (weird policy, not like I can buy the paper here). Basically the little bit I could see said it was his 2nd DUI thus a 4 month sentence. One hopes he learns as he could've easily left his kids without a father for life - drinking and driving is dangerous. Alcohol is used far too frequently and can be very deadly - my sister died from her liver being so damaged due to drinking that it couldn't work anymore and left behind 4 kids (she was in her early 50's). Society in general needs to wake up and see that it is far more dangerous than many banned substances. Perhaps a campaign ala the anti-smoking one is needed to get people to understand just how dangerous it is. Sadly the alcohol lobby is very powerful and many support it blindly.
   3. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: March 12, 2013 at 11:47 AM (#4386877)
So brave of Grace to take responsibility for two DUIs.
   4. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM (#4386880)
Simon: Tobes, I don't want to have to read you the riot act but I am going to have to read you some extracts from the riot act, like section one, paragraph one: don't leave your boss twisting in the wind and then burst in late, smelling like a pissed seaside donkey.

Toby: Look, alright, I was late for the meeting, Simon, I am sorry, but it's not like I threw up in there, is it?

Simon: No, you're right, I'm being unfair. I should be thanking you for not throwing up. Well done, you're a star. You didn't wet yourself, did you? You're in the right city. You didn't say anything overtly racist. You didn't pull your #### out and start plucking it and shouting "Willy Banjo". No, I'm being really unfair. You'd got so much right, without actually being there in the beginning of one of the most important moments of my career. Thanks, you're a legend.
   5. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4386888)
Alcohol is used far too frequently and can be very deadly -


Same could be said of driving.

Perhaps a campaign ala the anti-smoking one is needed to get people to understand just how dangerous it is. Sadly the alcohol lobby is very powerful and many support it blindly.


I used to do work for the alcohol lobby, and they're not nearly as powerful as the tobacco lobby. The group I worked with pretty much gave up fighting DUI laws, instead focusing on dram shop liability laws. Racheting up DUI penalties has been a great way for legislators to make it seem like they're doing something about the problem without much pushback, and every state now has a .08 BAC thresshold for DUI.

There has been a campaign, pushed by MADD in the 80s and 90s, and it seems to be working. Fatalities from DUIs are down 37% in the last 30 years. Some of that may be safer cars, but there is certainly an awareness now that never even entered people's minds in the 1970s.
   6. depletion Posted: March 12, 2013 at 12:43 PM (#4386893)
I'd like to thank the Chicago Tribune for the quantity of life destroying pop-ups and scripts on their web site.
The group I worked with pretty much gave up fighting DUI laws, instead focusing on dram shop liability laws.

I think John was referring not just to DUI, but the negative health aspects of excess drinking which are considerable.
   7. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: March 12, 2013 at 12:51 PM (#4386896)
Half past five, I'm in the pub
Six o'clock go home for grub...
   8. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 12, 2013 at 12:55 PM (#4386898)
Alcohol is used far too frequently and can be very deadly -

Same could be said of driving.
Yeah, driving is just this crazily dangerous thing we all do, and lots of people die or suffer terribly because of it, and we don't even really reflect on those losses. It's odd.
   9. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:06 PM (#4386905)
Racheting up DUI penalties has been a great way for legislators to make it seem like they're doing something about the problem without much pushback, and every state now has a .08 BAC thresshold for DUI.

Yes.
When drunk driving per se laws were first introduced, the limit was .15. But that was because we asked scientists, and not politicians.
I fully expect the limit to drop to .05 within my lifetime: because if it saves the life of just one child... etc., etc.

There has been a campaign, pushed by MADD in the 80s and 90s, and it seems to be working. Fatalities from DUIs are down 37% in the last 30 years. Some of that may be safer cars

Also yes.
I am certain there is greater awareness, and I'm certain that to some extent stricter DUI laws have "worked" - people are scared to drink and drive, in a way they weren't 30 years ago. When I was a kid, I remember "staggering around drunk" was kind of automatically "funny" on sitcoms, in a way it isn't now.
However, I see the drop in fatalities and I don't know how to separate out reduced drunk driving from safer cars and from much improved emergency medical care. I suspect no one else knows how to separate those factors, either. In a way, politicians are like some baseball managers and the bunt: you've got a lever, so you PULL THAT LEVER. PULL IT!
   10. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:08 PM (#4386908)
Same could be said of driving.
No. When a car is mishandled, that's an accident. When alcohol dulls your reasoning and degrades your reflexes, it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
   11. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:14 PM (#4386909)
the alcohol lobby is very powerful and many support it blindly.


In more than one sense, indeed.
   12. tfbg9 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:16 PM (#4386911)
George Carlin: Men drive like maniacs, women drive like idiots. Its the maniacs vs. the idiots.
   13. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4386912)
When a car is mishandled, that's an accident. When alcohol dulls your reasoning and degrades your reflexes, it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
These aren't analogous. When alcohol degrades your reflexes and you drive a car, you're mishandling your alcohol.

Cars are machines that go real fast. When a car going real fast hits something else, that's a part of what cars do.
   14. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4386917)
No. When a car is mishandled, that's an accident. When alcohol dulls your reasoning and degrades your reflexes, it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do.

Not true. I drink alcohol to become smarter, funnier and more attractive.

Seriously, though, based on my parents descriptions I think drunkeness in our society has toned down a bit from when they were young adults. College alcohol culture is another story, however.
   15. tfbg9 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:31 PM (#4386925)
Seriously, though, based on my parents descriptions I think drunkeness in our society has toned down a bit from when they were young adults.


This is true.
   16. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:36 PM (#4386930)
Yeah, driving is just this crazily dangerous thing we all do, and lots of people die or suffer terribly because of it, and we don't even really reflect on those losses. It's odd.

The problem is that we don't treat the many other things that degrade driving ability nearly as serious as we do alcohol.

0.08 may well be too strict, but I believe 100% that someone texting while driving is way more dangerous that someone with a 0.1 BAC. At least the drunk is usually looking where he's going.

The first penalty for texting while driving should be as high as the third for DUI. There should also be stiff penalties for eating/drinking (non-alcohol) while driving, driving when you haven't slept, and talking on the phone.
   17. Steve Treder Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4386931)
based on my parents descriptions I think drunkeness in our society has toned down a bit from when they were young adults.

I'm 54, and in my experience the drinking culture (at least in California) has toned down quite a bit over the past few decades.

For a long time I worked at Hewlett-Packard. Back in the day, in the HP Sales & Service offices (where the culture was, to be sure, more macho than at the labs and manufacturing sites), at 5:00 pm every day the General Manager would roll out the bar cart. Hard booze on the rocks, on the house. Before driving home, of course.

And if you didn't come around and have a belt or two with the boss and your co-workers at least most of the time, it was clear that there was an issue with your teamwork.

That was the norm until as recently as the 1980s. It's changed dramatically since then.
   18. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:40 PM (#4386935)
There has been a campaign, pushed by MADD in the 80s and 90s

MADD has been the single most influential do-gooder organization in my lifetime.

Anecdote warning: In 1972, I worked for a "functional" alcholic. Joe would stop at the "tappy" on the way in, go to lunch and have several beers, often bring back a quart. Sometimes if I was doing a delivery, he'd have me stop to bring one back for him (and me, if I wanted). Even at 20/21, I coudn't drink a quart of beer and then be worth much. He'd yell at me if I came back from a delivery too quickly, because his deliveries would always take longer, since he stopped for one or two.

One day he shows up at 10:30 AM blind, stinking drunk. Stumbling, virtually incoherent. The VP told him never to come in drunk again and told him to drive home and sober up. And Joe drove home in that condition and nobody thought twice. He was about 50, with 5 kids 14 and under.
   19. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:43 PM (#4386937)
at 5:00 pm every day the General Manager would roll out the bar cart. Hard booze on the rocks, on the house. Before driving home, of course.

If you stick to one or two, shouldn't be a problem. And of course, how wonderfully civilized when work actually ended at 5PM, with no expectation of checking your blackberry to all hours.
   20. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:47 PM (#4386944)
The first penalty for texting while driving should be as high as the third for DUI. There should also be stiff penalties for eating/drinking (non-alcohol) while driving, driving when you haven't slept, and talking on the phone.

This assumes the desired result is improved public safety.
   21. Steve Treder Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4386945)
how wonderfully civilized when work actually ended at 5PM, with no expectation of checking your blackberry to all hours.

Amen to that. The world before mobile electronic communication was indeed more civilized in many regards.
   22. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4386946)
This assumes the desired result is improved public safety.

Well, yes.
   23. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:51 PM (#4386947)
There should also be stiff penalties for eating/drinking (non-alcohol) while driving, driving when you haven't slept, and talking on the phone.

Wouldn't put talking on the phone on the same level as the other two. Is talking on the phone more dangerous than talking to another passenger in the car? (let's start by assuming use of speakerphone)
   24. Austin Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:51 PM (#4386948)
College alcohol culture is another story, however.

Sort of, but speaking as a current student, I don't think the culture of excessive drinking is as ubiquitous among college students as you're implying. The partiers are certainly very visible because they're often so obnoxious, but it's one of those power-law/Pareto principle things (20% of the people do 80% of the drinking). At least half of a student body will effectively never touch alcohol, and most of the rest will drink to excess only on rare occasion, if at all. It's the remainder who give college students such a bad rap.
   25. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 01:54 PM (#4386950)
Wouldn't put talking on the phone on the same level as the other two. Is talking on the phone more dangerous than talking to another passenger in the car? (let's start by assuming use of speakerphone)

No, but dialing, and fumbling in your pocket for the phone, and looking to see who called is.

Same thing with eating and drinking. It's not inherently dangerous to have a sip of coffee, until you spill the coffee on yourself.
   26. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: March 12, 2013 at 02:00 PM (#4386957)
Sort of, but speaking as a current student, I don't think the culture of excessive drinking is as ubiquitous among college students as you're implying. The partiers are certainly very visible because they're often so obnoxious, but it's one of those power-law/Pareto principle things (20% of the people do 80% of the drinking). At least half of a student body will effectively never touch alcohol, and most of the rest will drink to excess only on rare occasion, if at all. It's the remainder who give college students such a bad rap.

If that's the current norm it differs from my experience at Indiana University about ten years ago. Of course, my experience may not have been representative of the norm 10 years ago, either.
   27. Swedish Chef Posted: March 12, 2013 at 02:03 PM (#4386960)
If that's the current norm it differs from my experience at Indiana University about ten years ago. Of course, my experience may not have been representative of the norm 10 years ago, either.

There's always the risk that you're an outlier :-)
   28. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 02:10 PM (#4386962)
m 54, and in my experience the drinking culture (at least in California) has toned down quite a bit over the past few decades.

For a long time I worked at Hewlett-Packard. Back in the day, in the HP Sales & Service offices (where the culture was, to be sure, more macho than at the labs and manufacturing sites), at 5:00 pm every day the General Manager would roll out the bar cart. Hard booze on the rocks, on the house. Before driving home, of course.

And if you didn't come around and have a belt or two with the boss and your co-workers at least most of the time, it was clear that there was an issue with your teamwork.

That was the norm until as recently as the 1980s. It's changed dramatically since then.


Not just California. When I first started working, my dad's firm still embraced the two-or-three-martini lunch, and certainly when I went out with co-workers for lunch having a beer or two was nothing. Of course, downtown you're walking or cabbing, but having a few drinks after work before driving home wasn't uncommon, either. As my dad was (and is) a recovering alcoholic, he generally did not go along for the lunches or whatever, and yep, his peers often thought he was standoff-ish and not a team player.

Nowadays my experience is that there's never drinking at lunch, and if there is drinking after work, it's kept to just a beer or two, or else rides or cabs are arranged.
   29. Spectral Posted: March 12, 2013 at 02:14 PM (#4386966)
Wouldn't put talking on the phone on the same level as the other two. Is talking on the phone more dangerous than talking to another passenger in the car? (let's start by assuming use of speakerphone)

There's some evidence that it is. This paper comes to mind. There's some other papers as well, but it probably needs more study. Intuitively, it makes sense that speaking to someone who's in the car with you that's also observing the road might have non-verbal cues that bring your attention back to the road more frequently. I'm not totally sold on this yet, but it could easily be a real effect.
0.08 may well be too strict

What makes you think so?
I believe 100% that someone texting while driving is way more dangerous that someone with a 0.1 BAC.

I'm fairly sure this can be quantified, there's no need to just believe one thing or the other. I'll see what I can find if I have time. Really though, there's no rational justification for either behavior.
   30. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4386970)
I'm fairly sure this can be quantified, there's no need to just believe one thing or the other. I'll see what I can find if I have time. Really though, there's no rational justification for either behavior.

Do we need to quantify? Someone who's not looking at the road is clearly a worse driver than anyone (however impaired) who is looking. Not to mention taking one (or two) hands off the wheel to text.

True, but people get to a 0.1 BAC w/o realizing; no one texts w/o realizing.

Really, texting while driving is so insanely gratuitous that the penalty for first offense should be incredibly harsh. I'd say $5000 fine, loss of license for 1 year, and you're banned from owning or possessing a mobile device for 5 years.
   31. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2013 at 02:26 PM (#4386972)
Wouldn't put talking on the phone on the same level as the other two. Is talking on the phone more dangerous than talking to another passenger in the car? (let's start by assuming use of speakerphone)

Depending on the person it could be more dangerous in the car. My brother has a bad habit of always looking at you when he's talking to you...even if you're in the very back of a van he's driving. If there's a convoy-style road-trip we always used to joke that you can tell when he's having a conversation because the lead car will drift onto the shoulder.
   32. Nasty Nate Posted: March 12, 2013 at 02:32 PM (#4386982)
You can look at your phone when stopped, and then start paying full attention again when moving. You can't will yourself sober for parts of drives.
   33. Steve Treder Posted: March 12, 2013 at 02:33 PM (#4386983)
Nowadays my experience is that there's never drinking at lunch, and if there is drinking after work, it's kept to just a beer or two, or else rides or cabs are arranged.

Agreed. In the 1980s, it was common practice for work departments to have a once-a-week informal day out to lunch (not paid for by the company, just everyone splitting the check), and it was the norm for most people to have a beer or a glass of wine. Nowdays no one ever drinks at a work lunch.

And, in Silicon Valley, the norm was for a regularly-scheduled Beer Bust after work (at HP they were monthly, at many of the younger firms, such as Tandem Computers where I worked for a while, they were every Friday). At HP they stopped having them after an employee got drunk, and crashed his (company!) car on highway 280 and killed himself (around 1990, IIRC). The concept of legal liability dawned for the first time.
   34. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: March 12, 2013 at 02:34 PM (#4386984)
It's not inherently dangerous to have a sip of coffee, until you spill the coffee on yourself.

I had a friend who was laid up for 6 weeks with a burnt dick, courtesy of DWC (Driving While Caffeinating). This was after a long night of social drinking. He put the cup between his legs, then had to slam on the brakes. He showed me, after about a week, and it sent the shivers down my spine like nothing I had ever seen.
   35. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4386989)
You can look at your phone when stopped, and then start paying full attention again when moving. You can't will yourself sober for parts of drives.

The people I see going 75 MPH on the highway (or worse, going 50 in the left lane causing everyone to pass them on the right), looking at or holding their phones to their ears aren't doing that.

And why must you look at your phone?
   36. SandyRiver Posted: March 12, 2013 at 02:45 PM (#4386991)
The first penalty for texting while driving should be as high as the third for DUI. There should also be stiff penalties for eating/drinking (non-alcohol) while driving, driving when you haven't slept, and talking on the phone.

Murphy's umpteenth corollary says, never open a can of worms unless you're going fishing.

Let me know when truckers get told they cannot sip coffee while rolling, so I can be a long way away. Also, we'd have to make auto manufacturers eliminate cupholders, as they're unnecessary when the vehicle is parked. I agree about driving while drowsy, though without requiring all drivers to keep trucker-type logbooks, enforcement would be problematic. And would "talking on the phone" be extended to include CB, or work-related 2-way radio?
   37. Spectral Posted: March 12, 2013 at 02:49 PM (#4386994)
True, but people get to a 0.1 BAC w/o realizing; no one texts w/o realizing.

Who in the world are these people that are drinking without knowing it?
Really, texting while driving is so insanely gratuitous that the penalty for first offense should be incredibly harsh. I'd say $5000 fine, loss of license for 1 year, and you're banned from owning or possessing a mobile device for 5 years.

I agree. I see no reason that the same shouldn't be true for DWI though. Both are spectacularly unjustifiable and put others in grave danger for no real marginal benefit to anyone.
   38. Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad! Posted: March 12, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4387000)
My experience was similar to pops but at a different college. What I went through still seems to be very common amongst college kids. What school do you do go?
   39. bunyon Posted: March 12, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4387004)
You can look at your phone when stopped, and then start paying full attention again when moving. You can't will yourself sober for parts of drives.

So, you're the ####### that sat at a green for 15 seconds in front of me this morning, then sped through the yellow, preventing anyone else from making it through that cycle.

Maybe you shouldn't go to jail but I should get to kick you, hard, in the nuts four or five times.
   40. Nasty Nate Posted: March 12, 2013 at 03:10 PM (#4387017)

So, you're the ####### that sat at a green for 15 seconds in front of me this morning, then sped through the yellow, preventing anyone else from making it through that cycle.

Maybe you shouldn't go to jail but I should get to kick you, hard, in the nuts four or five times.


No!!! Trust me, if I am leader of the caravan at a red light, I am ready and go immediately at the change to green (assuming no jackasses are running the red lights on the cross streets).
   41. Swedish Chef Posted: March 12, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4387021)
In Sweden the legal limit is 0.000. But in practice it's 0.02.
   42. flournoy Posted: March 12, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4387032)
I had a friend who was laid up for 6 weeks with a burnt dick ... He showed me, after about a week


WTF? "Hey man, check this out."
   43. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: March 12, 2013 at 03:25 PM (#4387036)
You can look at your phone when stopped, and then start paying full attention again when moving. You can't will yourself sober for parts of drives.

In CA, there's no legal distinction between texting while the car's moving, and when it's stopped at a light or sign.
Sure, that's stupid, but it makes convictions much easier.
   44. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 03:32 PM (#4387043)
There should also be stiff penalties for eating/drinking (non-alcohol) while driving, driving when you haven't slept, and talking on the phone.


What kind of penalties are we talking about though? Large fines probably aren't enough to deter. Jailtime probably would, but our corrections system is overloaded as it is. Revoking driviling priveleges probably makes sense, but we've constructed a society in which it is extremely difficult to function without car outside a few major metro areas.

We need to reduce driving in this country period. Reducing driving, and you reduce so many other problems - fatalaties/injuries from accidents, smog/climate change, reliance on oil. I'm not sure racheting up criminal penalties will have much of a deterrent effect. People need to feel like there are options other than drunk driving that are so easy to use that driving drunk is seen as a stupid and unncessary risk. Right now, because the chance of getting caught or getting into an accident is relatively low, it is not, when compared to the hassle of getting a cab/ride home.
   45. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 12, 2013 at 03:35 PM (#4387046)
Fatalities from DUIs are down 37% in the last 30 years. Some of that may be safer cars, but there is certainly an awareness now that never even entered people's minds in the 1970s.

The increased use of seat belts (and air bags) probably had a significant impact. Even after the auto manufacturers were required to install seat belts in new cars, most people didn't actually use them. Big change now.
   46. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: March 12, 2013 at 03:41 PM (#4387050)
We need to reduce driving in this country period. Reducing driving, and you reduce so many other problems - fatalaties/injuries from accidents, smog/climate change, reliance on oil. I'm not sure racheting up criminal penalties will have much of a deterrent effect.

Yep.
It's sort of like shooting deaths, in that a big part of the issue is mental health, but that's a much harder problem to talk about, so basically, it doesn't happen.
   47. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 12, 2013 at 03:58 PM (#4387066)
There should also be stiff penalties for eating/drinking (non-alcohol) while driving, driving when you haven't slept, and talking on the phone.

Wouldn't put talking on the phone on the same level as the other two. Is talking on the phone more dangerous than talking to another passenger in the car? (let's start by assuming use of speakerphone)


Not that the law is an accurate measure of much, but don't laws distinguish between hands free dialing/talking, and conventional, hands-on use?

Eating while driving is different. You can simply stop eating if there's traffic. You control it in a way you can't control your behavior when you've been drinking, or when you've been up for 24 hours.

How do people get stopped for texting while driving? How do they get stopped for talking on the phone? Every phone now has a speaker, so you don't need to physcially hold it to your mouth or ear.

College alcohol culture is another story, however.

Sort of, but speaking as a current student, I don't think the culture of excessive drinking is as ubiquitous among college students as you're implying. The partiers are certainly very visible because they're often so obnoxious, but it's one of those power-law/Pareto principle things (20% of the people do 80% of the drinking). At least half of a student body will effectively never touch alcohol, and most of the rest will drink to excess only on rare occasion, if at all. It's the remainder who give college students such a bad rap.


Getting accurate statistics on drunk driving won't be easy, but it would be interesting to find out why there are fewer accidents due to drunk driving. Is 95% of the reduction due to getting a lot of the worst 20% off the roads (at least, for stretches of time if not entirely)? The worst 5%?
   48. John Northey Posted: March 12, 2013 at 03:59 PM (#4387067)
Read a study once that said if we took all the money currently spent on cars and gas and car insurance that they could set up a public transit system cross-country that would be every 10-15 minutes going by virtually every house on every street before factoring in how you'd need far smaller capacity roads and the like. Of course, it will never happen, but it was an interesting exercise to show how public transit doesn't need to be a nightmare to set up.
   49. Austin Posted: March 12, 2013 at 04:02 PM (#4387074)
What school do you do go?

I'm at the University of Chicago, which admittedly doesn't have a culture that's very representative of the average college. There may well be much less drinking and many fewer drinkers here. But I do think it's worth bearing in mind that if you're making estimates based on people you know, you're extrapolating from a biased sample. There will always be a fair number of antisocial people in any student body, and almost by definition, you won't know them and might not even be aware that they exist. There are also cases like my hometown school, the University of New Mexico, where about a third of my classmates went. Since it's a public university in a poor state, there are a lot of students who are older than standard college-age, work full-time, or both. Those students are too mature and too busy to waste much time partying. There are an awful lot of universities like this, so I suspect that thr culture of excessive drinking is exclusively observed at schools with socioeconomically upper-middle and upper-class student bodies.

Anyway, I'm sure that there are a lot of schools that have the drinking culture you and Pops experienced. But I do think the stigma associated with drinking has grown noticeably even just in the past decade, and at any rate your schools were probably not as typical as you think.
   50. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: March 12, 2013 at 04:09 PM (#4387081)
WTF? "Hey man, check this out."

Yeah, pretty much and morbid curiosity got the better of me. We liked to one up each other; he knew he was going to win on this occasion. I had nothing to compare. And was glad to lose this time!
   51. tfbg9 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 04:13 PM (#4387084)
my dad's firm still embraced the two-or-three-martini lunch


A three martini lunch? That's like 8 drinks worth of booze.

Tarzan: Hi honey, I'm home.
Jane: You smell like you've been drinking!
Tarzan: I had two martinis after work with Cheeta*.
Jane: Two martinis?
Tarzan: Its a jungle out there.

*in real life, the chimp actor who played Cheeta lived to the age of 80.
   52. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: March 12, 2013 at 04:32 PM (#4387099)
Not that the law is an accurate measure of much, but don't laws distinguish between hands free dialing/talking, and conventional, hands-on use?

The law does make that distinction, but it's a stupid distinction, because the problem is attention, not the hand holding the phone up to your ear. Apparently it doesn't make much difference whether it's hands-free or whatever; there's something specific to (1) talking on the phone (2) while driving, that just shoots people's attentive / reaction capacity all to hell.
   53. Blastin Posted: March 12, 2013 at 04:36 PM (#4387103)
I'm at the University of Chicago, which admittedly doesn't have a culture that's very representative of the average college.


I think U of C is definitely an outlier and also being urban, such schools are always a bit different in that city cops could theoretically arrest your ass if you act a fool in the wrong place.

At Princeton (and, come to think of it, it's about to be ten years since I was a freshman), it's just the old people with flashlights unless you get into a fight or need to be hospitalized.

We had a nickname for hospitalization. It was called being "PMC'd," as in Princeton Medical Center. But if you were only vomit-y and not unconscious, you'd usually just get McCosh'd, which was the health center on campus. It was possible to be McCosh'd (because your friends could carry you there) and have the staff determine PMC was needed.

Anyway, the amount we drank in college was not at all wise or healthy (and then I decided to live in South Korea for two years afterwards; talk about frying pan and fire, alcohol-wise). We usually had a handful (actually it was usually 7) of shots before we went out and drank (awful) beer all night (and smoked.. things). But I did all of my schoolwork and graduated on time (not all of my friends can say this, but some of the ones who can't are making a lot more money than I do in my nonprofit life, ha).

With all that said - and I don't think much has changed, since I go back once a year and find my "old" ass can't hack it for more than a weekend - no one ever drove after drinking, ever. Because there was nowhere to drive to. And everyone (97% of us) lived on campus.

Horrible for livers (and waistlines), but at least we never had issues with DUIs. Also, because of our bizarre social club deal, we didn't pay out of pocket for drinks on or near campus (we paid - or had them paid for - by semester ahead of time), so it was a lot easier not to think about how many you had. Those 7 shots would eat my budget, aside from the fact that, even at only 26, I absolutely cannot do very many (and drinking slowly is a lot more fun, because adulthood is a good thing).

(Mind you, I am 5'5' and not very heavy.)
   54. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 12, 2013 at 04:52 PM (#4387108)
I would like to see Sammy Sosa standing vigil outside of Mark Grace's jail cell, both arms in the air, holding a broken boombox over his head.
   55. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:00 PM (#4387113)
My boozing career at NYU consisted mostly of apartment parties and outings to Grassroots or Odessa ( <3 ).

   56. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:06 PM (#4387118)
deleted
   57. tfbg9 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:12 PM (#4387127)
55-when were you at NYU?
   58. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:14 PM (#4387131)

I'm at the University of Chicago, which admittedly doesn't have a culture that's very representative of the average college. There may well be much less drinking and many fewer drinkers here.


Ha - ya think? I went to Northwestern. We were almost like a real college environment compared to you guys.
   59. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4387136)
The law does make that distinction, but it's a stupid distinction, because the problem is attention, not the hand holding the phone up to your ear. Apparently it doesn't make much difference whether it's hands-free or whatever; there's something specific to (1) talking on the phone (2) while driving, that just shoots people's attentive / reaction capacity all to hell.


Is that really true, though? As in, "reliable studies show" true?
I don't find talking on the phone via speaker significantly more distracting than talking to a passenger, though with a passenger it's easier to let the conversation lag a little while you deal with difficulties on the road. I'd say there's a significant different between holding something, especially holding something to my ear and driving one handed, and having both hands entirely available in case I need to better control the wheel, or hold it steady in case of a blowout. I'd also say that talking hands-free is less distracting than trying to eat.


Read a study once that said if we took all the money currently spent on cars and gas and car insurance that they could set up a public transit system cross-country that would be every 10-15 minutes going by virtually every house on every street before factoring in how you'd need far smaller capacity roads and the like. Of course, it will never happen, but it was an interesting exercise to show how public transit doesn't need to be a nightmare to set up.


True, and if we were more experimental we'd try communities where you forgo private ownership of cars and pay the money to run a car into a common pot that would fund public transportation. Community cars would be available for off-community use, and I suppose with excessive use you'd pay an additional fee or have to go the rental route.
   60. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:21 PM (#4387140)
*in real life, the chimp actor who played Cheeta lived to the age of 80.


Um, not so much.
   61. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:25 PM (#4387144)
Read a study once that said if we took all the money currently spent on cars and gas and car insurance that they could set up a public transit system cross-country that would be every 10-15 minutes going by virtually every house on every street before factoring in how you'd need far smaller capacity roads and the like. Of course, it will never happen, but it was an interesting exercise to show how public transit doesn't need to be a nightmare to set up.


How do you get a week's worth of groceries home on a bus?

How do you take your dog to the vet on a bus?

How do you get building materials home from Home Depot on a bus?

How do you get plants a trees home from the nursery on a bus?

How do you take your family on a weekend camping trip on a bus?

Look, I'm all for more and better public transportation. but getting rid of private autos is such a ridiculous impracticality, that it's silly to discuss it.

   62. Bruce Chen's Huge Panamanian Robot Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4387157)
For a long time I worked at Hewlett-Packard. Back in the day, in the HP Sales & Service offices (where the culture was, to be sure, more macho than at the labs and manufacturing sites), at 5:00 pm every day the General Manager would roll out the bar cart. Hard booze on the rocks, on the house. Before driving home, of course.


The Mad Men theme song played in my head as I read that.
   63. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:38 PM (#4387161)
Look, I'm all for more and better public transportation. but getting rid of private autos is such a ridiculous impracticality, that it's silly to discuss it.


Having lived in a successful community where there was no private automobile ownership, I find your comment, frankly, silly.
   64. tfbg9 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:39 PM (#4387164)
Um, not so much.


Damn. Poor Cheeta. edit: guess I'm not the only one (who got taken-in):

December 28, 2011|By Ashley Hayes, CNN

"I grew up watching Tarzan and Cheetah from a boy," a man identifying himself as Thomas from England wrote on the Suncoast Primate Sanctuary's website. "God bless you Cheetah. Now you and Tarzan are together again."

The chimpanzee died Saturday after suffering kidney failure the week before, the sanctuary foundation said on the site. He was roughly 80 years old, Debbie Cobb, the sanctuary's outreach director, told CNN affiliate WFLA.

   65. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:40 PM (#4387166)
My college years included plenty of booze, including Friday afternoons where everyone in my major congregated in the building's lounge and drank dollar Heinies courtesy of the departmental budget. And drove home, of course. We had an instructor who drank (and smoked) during evening class. Very different times.
   66. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:40 PM (#4387168)
The Mad Men theme song played in my head as I read that.

When I worked as a janitor for the Toronto School Board we would occasionally have a few beers at work...though I think that was probably more Trailer Park Boys than Mad Men.
   67. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:48 PM (#4387175)
Having lived in a successful community where there was no private automobile ownership, I find your comment, frankly, silly.

Why would you want to eliminate private auto ownership? People like to drive. They prefer it to public transportation.

What on earth could be the reason for massive public investment to cajole people into something they'd prefer not to do?
   68. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:49 PM (#4387176)
My college years included plenty of booze, including Friday afternoons where everyone in my major congregated in the building's lounge and drank dollar Heinies courtesy of the departmental budget. And drove home, of course. We had an instructor who drank (and smoked) during evening class. Very different times.

We had "Wednesday Night Drinking Club", except substitute "Wednesday" for whatever day of the week someone felt like drinking. Looking back on it, dorm life was an idyllic existence. I lived in a 4 floor building on campus with 4-person, self-contained apartments. But a newer residence building had just been built when I arrived, so our building was at about half-capacity. Pretty much everyone knew everyone, so no one locked their apartment doors (I think I only ever locked my room door when I went home for Christmas). So it wasn't uncommon to just saunter into someone's place, and if no one was there just hang out. I remember once my friend had just got a shipment of homemade wine from his parents, so me and him spent an afternoon looking for someone to share it with. We ended up at an apartment that belonged to these girls, who of course were in class rather than home. So we sat in their living room watching the Simpsons for about two hours getting progressively drunker. When they got back we had a rousing party! It was like living in a cross between an episode of Cheers and an episode of Seinfeld.

Never had a prof drink in class, though we had a few classes that shifted venue to the campus pub when the turnout was low enough.
   69. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 05:56 PM (#4387185)
How do you get a week's worth of groceries home on a bus?

How do you take your dog to the vet on a bus?

How do you get building materials home from Home Depot on a bus?

How do you get plants a trees home from the nursery on a bus?

How do you take your family on a weekend camping trip on a bus?

Look, I'm all for more and better public transportation. but getting rid of private autos is such a ridiculous impracticality, that it's silly to discuss it.


1. You don't buy a whole week's of groceries, just a few days.

2. Bring your dog on the bus.

3. Rent a truck

4. Rent a truck

5. Rent a car

I'm not saying I want to ban cars or anything, just that 95% of our driving does not involve scenarios like this, and we could probably use some sort of public transit instead if it were made available and easy.


What on earth could be the reason for massive public investment to cajole people into something they'd prefer not to do?


Reduce fatalities, reduce pollution, reduce reliance on energy sources that require expensive military ventures. How do we know people would prefer not to do this when we haven't done it yet and the few areas that do have an easy, effective mass transit system have a lot of users?
   70. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:01 PM (#4387190)
What on earth could be the reason for massive public investment to cajole people into something they'd prefer not to do?
Preventing injury and death would be a big one, per the entire discussion up to this point in the thread.
   71. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:04 PM (#4387193)
What on earth could be the reason for massive public investment to cajole people into something they'd prefer not to do?

Reduce fatalities, reduce pollution, reduce reliance on energy sources that require expensive military ventures. How do we know people would prefer not to do this when we haven't done it yet and the few areas that do have an easy, effective mass transit system have a lot of users?


It even works in areas where there is no public transportation. I lived for a while in a community of 100 people that owned around 15 vehicles, including a van. Trips to nearby cities were regularly scheduled. Someone went shopping six days a week. You put in a slip for any groceries you wanted the 'tripper' to pick up the day before or the morning of. Compare that to the 90+ of vehicles 100 Americans would own. If you wanted private use of a car you signed one out. If you went over x miles in a month, you paid per mile.

There are also clubs you can join in places like NYC that give you access to vehicles owned by the club for your private use. The cost is dramatically less than trying to own and maintain a car within the city.

Use your imagination, snapper.
   72. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:07 PM (#4387195)
Reduce fatalities, reduce pollution, reduce reliance on energy sources that require expensive military ventures. How do we know people would prefer not to do this when we haven't done it yet and the few areas that do have an easy, effective mass transit system have a lot of users?

Those easy, effective mass transit systems only work in areas with crazy high density, where the drive is much longer than the mass transit alternative, and they still don't come close to paying for themselves.

Look I take Metro North every day; 45 minutes on the train beats 1:15 in the car. But, this summer we're moving to Jersey City, and you can be damned sure I'm going to drive 1 hour (on the days I can't work from home) rather than spend 1:45 on 4 separate train lines.

Even in the densest, most mass transit saturated city in the US (NY), lots of commutes don't work by mass transit.

For most of the US, public transit will always be less efficient than cars. We're spread out too much.
   73. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:10 PM (#4387198)
Preventing injury and death would be a big one, per the entire discussion up to this point in the thread.

Automobile deaths account for ~32,000 of 2.5 million deaths annually in the US. It's not that big an issue.

Any money would be better spent on encouraging people to stop stuffing their faces.
   74. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:11 PM (#4387199)
There are also clubs you can join in places like NYC that give you access to vehicles owned by the club for your private use. The cost is dramatically less than trying to own and maintain a car within the city.

Use your imagination, snapper.


Most people in NYC don't have cars. The issue is that most of us live in significantly less dense environments.
   75. Depressoteric Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:22 PM (#4387209)
Someone went shopping six days a week. You put in a slip for any groceries you wanted the 'tripper' to pick up the day before or the morning of.
This seems like a godawful system. What happened, pray tell, when the 'tripper' f**ked up and got you the wrong product at the grocery store? (You wanted a certain brand, he got something else or couldn't find what you wanted.) What happened if you decided on the spur of the moment that you wanted something you hadn't initially considered?

This unsatisfying "collective" system utterly and completely destroys spontaneity and freedom of action in that sort of situation. If it works for you, hey, more power to you. Just don't tell me I have to join in.

Also, "no private automobile ownership?" What, did you live on a hippie commune or something? Ye gods.

EDIT: Also, you ought to fix your nickname. The proper word is "Minstrelsy," not "Minstrelry."
   76. Delorians Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:26 PM (#4387217)
Automobile deaths account for ~32,000 of 2.5 million deaths annually in the US. It's not that big an issue.

I'm probably closer to your side than theirs on this overall issue, but how many of those 2.5 million are preventable (i.e., not natural causes/old age)? As a percentage of preventable deaths, automobile deaths are not insignificant.
   77. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:29 PM (#4387219)
Is that really true, though? As in, "reliable studies show" true?

Ten seconds on Google revealed five different studies going back to the mid-2000s, all saying pretty much the same thing, for pretty much the same reason.
I guess you read 'em, see if they seem reliable to you, and report back.
   78. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:31 PM (#4387222)
I'm probably closer to your side than theirs on this overall issue, but how many of those 2.5 million are preventable (i.e., not natural causes/old age)? As a percentage of preventable deaths, automobile deaths are not insignificant.

Depends on how you define preventable.

A very large % of the heart-disease deaths are at least significantly delayable if people heed medical advice when they're first diagnosed. Same with diabetes.
   79. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 12, 2013 at 06:40 PM (#4387228)
This seems like a godawful system. What happened, pray tell, when the 'tripper' f**ked up and got you the wrong product at the grocery store? (You wanted a certain brand, he got something else or couldn't find what you wanted.) What happened if you decided on the spur of the moment that you wanted something you hadn't initially considered?


I guess you shout OH MY GOD, YOU FORGOT MY SUPER CHUNKY! and keel over in a dead faint.

This unsatisfying "collective" system utterly and completely destroys spontaneity and freedom of action in that sort of situation. If it works for you, hey, more power to you. Just don't tell me I have to join in.


Which, of course, it doesn't. When your knee stops jerking re-read my post and note that everyone has access to and private use of the collectively owned vehicles.

EDIT: Also, you ought to fix your nickname. The proper word is "Minstrelsy," not "Minstrelry."


Jesus, your panties really are bunching today, aren't they? Consult your local dictionary. Please.
   80. Srul Itza Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:09 PM (#4387239)
Intuitively, it makes sense that speaking to someone who's in the car with you that's also observing the road might have non-verbal cues that bring your attention back to the road more frequently.


Non-verbal cues? More likely the person sitting next to you going, "Hey, watch the road, damnit!"
   81. Srul Itza Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:12 PM (#4387241)
And, in Silicon Valley, the norm was for a regularly-scheduled Beer Bust after work (at HP they were monthly, at many of the younger firms, such as Tandem Computers where I worked for a while, they were every Friday). At HP they stopped having them after an employee got drunk, and crashed his (company!) car on highway 280 and killed himself (around 1990, IIRC). The concept of legal liability dawned for the first time.


When I joined a lawfirm out here, there was a culture of drinking after work, and of drinking parties. Then a case came down which applied dram shop laws to a company picnic or party, I forget which. That changed the culture pretty fast.
   82. Tuque Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:18 PM (#4387244)
Grassroots

!!!!!

I lived across from Grassroots for a year.

Partying at NYU is hard. It was a shocker to move out to LA and remember that a party doesn't have to consist of 100 people packed into a ten-person room.
   83. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:26 PM (#4387249)
I lived for a while in a community of 100 people that owned around 15 vehicles, including a van.

By cracky, if it works for 100 people, it's just got to work for a country of 300 million!

Time to give up the hippie fantasies, son.
   84. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:33 PM (#4387253)
By cracky, if it works for 100 people, it's just got to work for a country of 300 million!

I can beat that! I've lived one life having driven zero cars. Multiply that out to 300 million lives and that's like...12 cars!
   85. bigglou115 Posted: March 12, 2013 at 07:43 PM (#4387264)
Yeah, driving is just this crazily dangerous thing we all do, and lots of people die or suffer terribly because of it, and we don't even really reflect on those losses. It's odd.


I remember the Discovery Channel did that 2052 show a few years back, and this was one of the things it talked about. They talked about the driving culture and how the push to automate cars would be fought vociferously, but that at some point the world would look back on the death toll on the interstates and go "What were they thinking? How could they let this go on for so long?" It really is a huge cultural blind spot in that nobody thinks about the fact that driving to work entails hundreds to thousands of people driving multi ton piles of steel powered by controlled explosions in excess of 50 MPH, all while relying on everyone near you not to make a mistake.

As to drinking culture, I attended a University with one of the strongest fraternity presences in the country, and gladly joined up. We drank quite a bit, and honestly never even thought about it. It wasn't uncommon to pick up a 30 pack for yourself and expect to drink the whole thing on a Saturday, and not as any kind of contest.

I often look back and think that we were relatively tame. You hear about morons trying to give themselves beer enemas and it makes you realize that trying to become a professional beer pong player wasn't so bad.

That said, law school was probably far more destructive for my liver. By then, your expected to have a familiarity with all sorts of liquor. I think I probably drank at least two scotches a day throughout my first two years. You always know at least one of your friends is at your favorite bar at any given time.
   86. zonk Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:05 PM (#4387274)
Ha - ya think? I went to Northwestern. We were almost like a real college environment compared to you guys.


Ditto... what year?

I am convinced, however, that 26/27 were correct... if you were among the outlier group - it tended to skew your sample.

We were discussing it at a tailgate last year - generally speaking, I'm still hanging out with more or less the same crew as 20 years ago. An acquaintance of our circle from 15-20 years stopped by and marveled at how we were still all hanging out -- not to mention, how we still had a case of Busch Light (don't get me wrong - the coolers are now filled with much finer beers... but you can't shotgun a Rogue). As we went on to discuss what a towing service would cost to move half a dozen vehicles to legal, off-field parking spots and whether it would cost more than just leaving them to be 'officially' towed and retrieve them from impound the next day, it suddenly became less of a marvel.
   87. flournoy Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:36 PM (#4387297)
We have this same thread every month or two.

I'm glad some people like public transportation and can use it to good effect. I generally have no use for it, and it would be completely impractical for my life. I take solace knowing that the radicals espousing their moonbat positions on this issue will never "win." Have fun dreaming!
   88. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 08:50 PM (#4387310)
55-when were you at NYU?


07. Yourself?
   89. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:01 PM (#4387316)
I lived for a while in a community of 100 people that owned around 15 vehicles, including a van.

By cracky, if it works for 100 people, it's just got to work for a country of 300 million!

Time to give up the hippie fantasies, son.


Fuck a fucking donut. You do realize this is a comments section, with discussion, replies, context; all that good stuff? It was in the context of developing communities, not an entire nation, and then in the context of a response to a silly comment. A silly comment other than yours, that is.

People who can follow recognize we already do this, albeit more formally; in those cases we call it public transportation and rental cars.
   90. cardsfanboy Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:09 PM (#4387321)
my dad's firm still embraced the two-or-three-martini lunch


I worked for the census bureau(in the offices) and their code of conduct allowed a couple of drinks during lunch. Apparently most federal rules still allow that. Mind you I exploited that rule, as my local bar was across the street from the office and I worked the night shift and didn't have to deal with many people directly.
   91. Leroy Kincaid Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:10 PM (#4387324)
I get a kick out of commercials showing people waiting for, or on the bus. They're usually very normal looking. I took the bus for several years and most of the passengers were people you wouldn't want to be near (me being an exception, of course). One day a guy flagged the bus down and got on complaining that he had just been shot (this was around 1 in the afternoon). You could see he was bleeding pretty good from the shoulder. So the bus driver called for an ambulance and the guy was sitting there in obvious pain. A couple of passengers tried to comfort him. Meanwhile we have to sit and wait for the ambulance. Some people were getting antsy, just wanting to get where they were going. Not me, of course...
   92. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:11 PM (#4387325)
#### a ####### donut.

"What is 'the entire philosophy of the American Left in four words', Alex?"
"DING! And you have control of the board...!"
   93. cardsfanboy Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:13 PM (#4387327)
Is that really true, though? As in, "reliable studies show" true?


I haven't been able to find any of those studies that I used to cite. But yes there have been studies on talking and driving, and they generally found that 1. talking to a passenger while driving doesn't really hinder your ability 2. That talking on the phone, regardless of whether it was with a hands free device, speaker phone or on the phone itself, is roughly equivalent to about .12 bac in performance. 3. That even after you quit talking/texting that up to 10 minutes later your ability to perform is impaired.

My other favorite study that I can't find, is a computer simulation that says that if 1 out of 5 people drive the proper breaking distance that a vast majority of gridlock would be reduced or eliminated. I thought it would be a good idea to start a movement where one day a week(based upon your last name in the alphabet) that you promise to drive at the proper breaking distance.

Meanwhile we have to sit and wait for the ambulance. Some people were getting antsy, just wanting to get where they were going. Not me, of course...


I might be antsy worrying about if the shooter was going to follow him onto the bus.
   94. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:13 PM (#4387328)
I took the bus for several years and most of the passengers were people you wouldn't want to be near (me being an exception, of course).

Obligatory.
   95. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:31 PM (#4387342)
I worked for the census bureau(in the offices) and their code of conduct allowed a couple of drinks during lunch. Apparently most federal rules still allow that.

I don't think any office I've worked in ever prohibited drinking during lunch. I'll sometimes have a beer on the rare occasions I eat out for lunch.

My office serves beer and wine at afternoon/evening in-office events.
   96. cardsfanboy Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:37 PM (#4387350)
I don't think any office I've worked in ever prohibited drinking during lunch


It was something new to me, being in the military and retail, neither of which allowed drinking at all during work hours, it was somewhat refreshing.
   97. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:39 PM (#4387354)
It was something new to me, being in the military and retail, neither of which allowed drinking at all during work hours, it was somewhat refreshing.

I can understand the military, what with the weapons and helicopters and all, but retail?
   98. cardsfanboy Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:47 PM (#4387360)
I can understand the military, what with the weapons and helicopters and all, but retail?


If you are a customer, would you want to talk to someone that had alcohol on their breath? Mind you, I used to drink heavily and would come into work sometimes still drunk from the night before, but that was ok. (Heck one of my managers actually commented on my numbers being better on day I drink)

Of course low skill jobs can set up higher restrictions since it's easier to replace you.

   99. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:49 PM (#4387364)
If you are a customer, would you want to talk to someone that had alcohol on their breath?

I usually try not to get that close to strangers ;-)
   100. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: March 12, 2013 at 09:57 PM (#4387369)
I'm glad some people like public transportation and can use it to good effect. I generally have no use for it, and it would be completely impractical for my life. I take solace knowing that the radicals espousing their moonbat positions on this issue will never "win." Have fun dreaming!

If there were a high speed rail line that had a stop directly outside my front door and ran non stop to my day job, I would still drive. I have no desire to smell people and listen to them shout into their cell phones. Have fun with that.

But yes there have been studies on talking and driving, and they generally found that 1. talking to a passenger while driving doesn't really hinder your ability 2. That talking on the phone, regardless of whether it was with a hands free device, speaker phone or on the phone itself, is roughly equivalent to about .12 bac in performance. 3. That even after you quit talking/texting that up to 10 minutes later your ability to perform is impaired.

Wow, the people in these studies must be shitty drivers. Then again, they were available to participate in such studies and so probably aren't highly functioning individuals or they would be doing something productive.

I will continue to make calls on my hands free bluetooth, and send texts at red lights and there will be no issue. It's not really that difficult. All that the new distracted driving law has done is make me slightly more distracted because I need to spend a little more time keeping an eye out for cops doing their fundraising work.
Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
aleskel
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-29-2014
(53 - 1:08am, Jul 30)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3566 - 1:06am, Jul 30)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogSOE: Minor League Manhood - A first-hand account of masculine sports culture run amok.
(13 - 1:05am, Jul 30)
Last: clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right

NewsblogTrader Jack? As Seattle's GM struggles to complete deals, some rival executives wonder | FOX Sports
(59 - 12:58am, Jul 30)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogESPN: Twins Sign "Out Of Nowhere" Prospect
(17 - 12:57am, Jul 30)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogHoward: David Ortiz shaping up to become first steroid era Teflon slugger
(31 - 12:54am, Jul 30)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogABC News: ‘Capital Games’: How Congress Saved the Baseball Hall of Fame
(47 - 12:38am, Jul 30)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogMASN TV Contract Pits Selig vs Nationals vs Orioles
(21 - 12:34am, Jul 30)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogWhich Players Will Be Most Affected by the Hall of Fame’s New Rules?
(11 - 12:29am, Jul 30)
Last: cardsfanboy

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Discussion
(13 - 12:02am, Jul 30)
Last: MrC

NewsblogFull Count » Tim Kurkjian on MFB: ‘I’m going to say that Jon Lester is not going to be traded’
(31 - 11:32pm, Jul 29)
Last: TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(508 - 11:02pm, Jul 29)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1014 - 10:07pm, Jul 29)
Last: robinred

NewsblogValencia traded to Toronto
(12 - 9:52pm, Jul 29)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogBarney + cash to Dodgers for PTBNL
(28 - 8:56pm, Jul 29)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.6460 seconds
52 querie(s) executed