Ellie DUI
- Thread starter UK_King
- Start date
You're getting some different figures than ones I've seen before. Generally I've seen alcohol attributed to about one third of car accident fatalities. That's the problem with quoting statistics. There's almost always another statistic to refute any given statistic and who's to say what one is right?
And no, I do not think drinking and driving is no big deal. I just don’t understand why people make it such a big deal compared to other types of dangerous driving. I also think that it’s important to distinguish between driving drunk and driving with some alcohol in your system.
The “buzzed driving is drunk driving” ads that try and make driving “buzzed” tantamount to driving inebriated are just overly dramatic and don’t help the issue.
Anyone who has any experience with alcohol knows there’s vast differences in levels of intoxication.
That’s why I think it’s so short sighted to treat all cases of DUI as equal. Someone who can barely walk or speak, driving is much more dangerous than someone who had a drink or two at dinner but still has all their motor skills intact, driving. There should be more emphasis on the individual involved and what their condition is than on what a blood alcohol test says. Not everyone reacts to moderate amounts of alcohol the same, so we shouldn’t be acting as if they do.
And no, I do not think drinking and driving is no big deal. I just don’t understand why people make it such a big deal compared to other types of dangerous driving. I also think that it’s important to distinguish between driving drunk and driving with some alcohol in your system.
The “buzzed driving is drunk driving” ads that try and make driving “buzzed” tantamount to driving inebriated are just overly dramatic and don’t help the issue.
Anyone who has any experience with alcohol knows there’s vast differences in levels of intoxication.
That’s why I think it’s so short sighted to treat all cases of DUI as equal. Someone who can barely walk or speak, driving is much more dangerous than someone who had a drink or two at dinner but still has all their motor skills intact, driving. There should be more emphasis on the individual involved and what their condition is than on what a blood alcohol test says. Not everyone reacts to moderate amounts of alcohol the same, so we shouldn’t be acting as if they do.
Last edited:
That was my first thought when I read the headline over at ESPN. I can't believe people still drink and drive. What a bad example by Ellie. Hopefully this situation doesn't have an adverse effect on the team. The team doesn't need any disctractions like this. We need the coaches coaching and teaching.
Scandalous pics of dancers??? EDIT: I just checked out the pics. Nothing that a million or so high school and college girls don't do every weekend. Are there really people who expect CHEERLEADERS to be role models?? I mean, these girls prance around on the court with their asses hanging out for a living! LMAO
Last edited:
Who looks worse? Not all are mug shots but look at Noc and Muss - those EYES!
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/09/3247420/kings-lane-violations.html?mi_rss=Photo Galleries
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/09/3247420/kings-lane-violations.html?mi_rss=Photo Galleries
Well, they actually had people of all kinds participate in some testing. It included average folks, truck drivers and even a professional race car driver. It included men and woman and people of all sizes and ages. They all had to drive a course that was marked by orange pylons. Everyone did fine, it was an easy course. Then they had people take one drink and drive the course again a half hour later. NOT ONE person made it through the course without knocking over some pylons, Some only knocked over two or three. Some wiped out rows of them. So you're right everybody is affected differently, but everyone was impaired to some degree. Not one was not impaired to some degree. 0.8 blood alcohol level wasn't just pulled out of thin air.
However, you are right that drinking is not involved in as high a percentage of fatalities as it used to be. It has steadily declined. http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
Of course, the main reason it's declined is because of the movement to make it unacceptable to drive while impaired by alcohol. Some people that don't even think they are "buzzed," are, in fact, impaired.
Alcohol also generally impairs people's judgment. So they are not even a good judge of just how impaired they are. Trust me. I am almost always a designated driver. People get stupid even faster than they're drinking. So it just makes sense to plan ahead and stick to the plan.
If legally drunk people only damaged their own property or only killed themselves, I'd have no problem.
As for Elie, its too bad for him and the team. Maloofs should stop running that third quarter "Thirsty Quarter" thing where they show people downing those giant-size beers. Heck, those people are going to be on the road in less than an hour. One of tose cups must actually be at least two beers.
However, you are right that drinking is not involved in as high a percentage of fatalities as it used to be. It has steadily declined. http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
Of course, the main reason it's declined is because of the movement to make it unacceptable to drive while impaired by alcohol. Some people that don't even think they are "buzzed," are, in fact, impaired.
Alcohol also generally impairs people's judgment. So they are not even a good judge of just how impaired they are. Trust me. I am almost always a designated driver. People get stupid even faster than they're drinking. So it just makes sense to plan ahead and stick to the plan.
If legally drunk people only damaged their own property or only killed themselves, I'd have no problem.
As for Elie, its too bad for him and the team. Maloofs should stop running that third quarter "Thirsty Quarter" thing where they show people downing those giant-size beers. Heck, those people are going to be on the road in less than an hour. One of tose cups must actually be at least two beers.
That is pretty much crap. Of course parents have the primary responsibility, but to think that other adults chidren see have no impact is ridiculous The idea that mom and dad are solely responsible for how kids turn out is a late 20th century invention. The nuclear family is really a 20th centry invention. For thousands of years, human adults shared child-rearing. It was seen as the responsibility of all the adults of tribe, village, clan, extended family or other group. Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer-winning journalist wrote a column some years ago, de-crying the fact that society used to support the goals of parents and believed all should set a good example for children, whereas it had reached the point now where parents have to defend and shield their children from society these days. Parents these days are a minority and fighting their own culture to raise children to be decent, caring and responsible adults. It would be for the good of all of us, if we remind ourselves that when we are in public, there are children watching everything we do and listening to everything we say. We can all make a difference and, incidentally, help out some frazzled parent.
My hero growing up was Sandy Koufax. He was a Jew, but not a religious Jew. He refused to play in a World Series game on the Jewish sabbath. He didn't want Jewish children to see him disrespect the Jewish holy day. He wanted to be a good example. Famous people may not want to be an example, but they are, even if not the most important example in a child's life.
My hero growing up was Sandy Koufax. He was a Jew, but not a religious Jew. He refused to play in a World Series game on the Jewish sabbath. He didn't want Jewish children to see him disrespect the Jewish holy day. He wanted to be a good example. Famous people may not want to be an example, but they are, even if not the most important example in a child's life.
Well considering that alcohol impairment is still involved in over a third of fatalities, I think its more than a distraction. Apparently those distractions can't match those numbers. Second highest cause of fatalities is fatigue, apparently.
But I would recommend avoiding those distractions, too. That doesn't excuse the people who drive legally drunk, however.
But I would recommend avoiding those distractions, too. That doesn't excuse the people who drive legally drunk, however.
Last edited:
If you agree that parents have the primary responsibility, then it’s odd that you’d say “that is pretty much crap", sense the crux of my argument, was that parents have the primary (I’d say sole) responsibility.
I never claimed it had no impact. That’s a strawman argument. Whether or not bad behavior by high profile people has a transitive effect on children, insofar far as influencing behavior goes, was not part of my argument. My argument was strictly about whether holding high profile people to a high, or higher standard of decorum is a realistic expectation. I’d say it’s not realistic.
Again, that’s a distortion of my argument. I never claimed that outside influence can’t have an impact. What I’m claiming, is that how kids will ultimately react to those influences, or to what degree, depends on parenting. It’s the parents job to instill a sense of right and wrong and to teach their kids what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. That way, the kids know that it’s not OK to emulate bad behavior just because they saw someone else do it. If a kid doesn’t have the tools to do that, that’s a parental failure.
even if true, that’s not relevant to our society. Tribal societies were much smaller, much more personal, much more dependent on one another, etc. Our society bears little resemblance to tribal societies where the “it takes a village” approach may have some validity. Our society is more impersonal, more isolated, more individualistic, etc. so naturally the dynamics regarding the communal role in child rearing is very different, as well.
In an ideal world, that would be great. My point is, that it isn’t realistic to expect other people to act in an idealistic way. We can’t control other people’s behavior and what “message” that behavior may send to kids. All we can do, is try and guide and teach the kids so that they’re capable of discerning good behavior from bad behavior themselves.
Again, ideally, that would be great. But that’s just not how the world works. Folks aren’t just going to fall in line with how you’d ideally like them to be. So the best you can do, is accept that you can’t control their behavior and focus on what you can control (to an extent) which is how your own kids will ultimately react to other people’s behavior.
If someone wants to embrace their celebrity, and use it in a positive way, great. Where we set ourselves up for disappointment though, is when we adopt the expectation that all celebrities use their fame in positive ways.
I never claimed it had no impact. That’s a strawman argument. Whether or not bad behavior by high profile people has a transitive effect on children, insofar far as influencing behavior goes, was not part of my argument. My argument was strictly about whether holding high profile people to a high, or higher standard of decorum is a realistic expectation. I’d say it’s not realistic.
Again, that’s a distortion of my argument. I never claimed that outside influence can’t have an impact. What I’m claiming, is that how kids will ultimately react to those influences, or to what degree, depends on parenting. It’s the parents job to instill a sense of right and wrong and to teach their kids what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. That way, the kids know that it’s not OK to emulate bad behavior just because they saw someone else do it. If a kid doesn’t have the tools to do that, that’s a parental failure.
even if true, that’s not relevant to our society. Tribal societies were much smaller, much more personal, much more dependent on one another, etc. Our society bears little resemblance to tribal societies where the “it takes a village” approach may have some validity. Our society is more impersonal, more isolated, more individualistic, etc. so naturally the dynamics regarding the communal role in child rearing is very different, as well.
In an ideal world, that would be great. My point is, that it isn’t realistic to expect other people to act in an idealistic way. We can’t control other people’s behavior and what “message” that behavior may send to kids. All we can do, is try and guide and teach the kids so that they’re capable of discerning good behavior from bad behavior themselves.
Again, ideally, that would be great. But that’s just not how the world works. Folks aren’t just going to fall in line with how you’d ideally like them to be. So the best you can do, is accept that you can’t control their behavior and focus on what you can control (to an extent) which is how your own kids will ultimately react to other people’s behavior.
If someone wants to embrace their celebrity, and use it in a positive way, great. Where we set ourselves up for disappointment though, is when we adopt the expectation that all celebrities use their fame in positive ways.