TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Drunk Driving
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

As others have replied, I did it quite a few times. In more recent years I've stopped drinking and driving alltogether. I've seen so much stupid shit on the roads, that its just not worth it.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced A better question is who has driven while under the influence of either drugs or alcohol.

Totally different, can't even compare them...

I have more than once tbh

quote:

Originally posted by Zentac_75 Don't drive high either. I get frustrated when I hear "I drive slower or more careful when I'm high". Its BS. "I THINK Im driving more careful BECAUSE I am high" is much more accurate a phrase.

Every test done with real drivers in relation to smoking pot and driving refutes this statement. The only studies done that support your claim have been simulations. "On average, people have a 20% reduction in response-time, so we'll factor in a 20% reduction in response-time in our simulation... Oh! Look at that, the computer AI crashes more, who'd have thunk?!" Is a horrible way of doing a study, it doesn't take into account the driver's increased concentration, likely due to the increased paranoia when one is under the influence of cannabis. The general consensus is that stoned drivers are less likely to CAUSE an accident, but are less likely to AVOID an accident.

To refute my own statement, however, I would agree that a person who doesn't regularly smoke pot, and/or hasn't learned how to function under the influence, would probably not be able to drive properly. Drugs affect different people in different ways, and you can't just say "Look! First-time Sally can barely walk! Obviously, no one can handle a car properly while high."

On a personal level, I DO drive slower when I'm high. I know for a fact that I do, because I check my speed limit regularly, whether I'm high or sober. On average, I drive about 10km/h slower when I'm stoned. I DO look around and try to be more observant when I'm high. I know this for a fact, because the only time I check my side mirrors regularly is when I'm stoned. I also look around more and pay more attention to what others are doing. I'm better able to ignore a lot of the petty distractions that get me when I'm sober when I have a little THC in my bloodstream. When I'm high, I'm much more focused on the job of driving rather than finding a good song on the radio, what CD I want to play, or talking to whoever else is in the car with me.

Coincidently, I was sober for the 2 accidents I've been in over the years, take that for what it's worth. If I'm not actually a SAFER driver when I'm high, I'm certainly no more dangerous on the road than when I'm sober.

quote:

Originally posted by TheVrk Totally different, can't even compare them... I have more than once tbh

you would be charged with DUI for either so I think its fair to compare the two, I don't see how its any different.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Coincidently, I was sober for the 2 accidents I've been in over the years, take that for what it's worth. If I'm not actually a SAFER driver when I'm high, I'm certainly no more dangerous on the road than when I'm sober.

Thats a stupid comment....I am sure the number of times you drive sober out number the few times you have driven high so the chances of getting into an accident while sober are greater.

Did you know that 33% of all accidents are caused by someone under the influence...that means 64% are caused by sober people....maybe we shouldn't let sober people drive because they cause more accidents.

That calculator determined that I can drink 5 shots of 40%liquor in 1 hour and still be under.


5 SHOTS IN AN HOUR........I'D BE SHI*FACED!!

I would def blow over after having 5 shots of tequila in an hour then driving

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced Thats a stupid comment....I am sure the number of times you drive sober out number the few times you have driven high so the chances of getting into an accident while sober are greater. Did you know that 33% of all accidents are caused by someone under the influence...that means 64% are caused by sober people....maybe we shouldn't let sober people drive because they cause more accidents.

how can you say this without knowing how often people are bombed..?

for me it's like 50/50

maybe on average the the general population is hammered or high 35% of the time. that would make you 2% more likely to get into an accident while sober.




you should see my mom drive jacked on zoloft and a large hortons coffee(both of which are legal)... i guarantee i could drive in a straighter line with 6-10 beers in me.

i was driving drunk in the snow storm......

quote:

Originally posted by Zentac_75 For anyone who really drives drunk... double vision is direct result of having two eyes. If you are sooooo drunk that everything is split close one eye..

I have done this before.

quote:

Originally posted by ItalianPoiSon i was driving drunk in the snow storm......

I was driving drunk one time, but then I decided it wasn't safe








so I pulled over into a ditch.

quote:

Originally posted by phlog how can you say this without knowing how often people are bombed..? for me it's like 50/50 maybe on average the the general population is hammered or high 35% of the time. that would make you 2% more likely to get into an accident while sober. you should see my mom drive jacked on zoloft and a large hortons coffee(both of which are legal)... i guarantee i could drive in a straighter line with 6-10 beers in me.

if you are driving bombed 50% of the time then I hope you get your licence taken away for good.....and I highly doubt the average is even close to 35%.

Maybe its because of the type of job I do and having seen dead people sprawled out on the road because another driver thought he was fine to drive after smoking a J with his buddies....someone who admittedly said that smoking was a daily thing for him.....gives me a different perspective.

To anyone who drives under the influence....do us all a favour and stay off the roads....you might get lucky and not get yourself killed but how about thinking about the people you might kill that one out of a million times you decide to.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced maybe we shouldn't let sober people drive because they cause more accidents.

Using that same line of reasoning, maybe we should let drunk/high people drive because they cause less accidents.

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree Using that same line of reasoning, maybe we should let drunk/high people drive because they cause less accidents.

that was precisely his point, Fahad.

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree Using that same line of reasoning, maybe we should let drunk/high people drive because they cause less accidents.

or even better....make it mandatory that you get drunk or high before driving. Maybe I can get a discount on my insurance if I only drive drunk or high....I think I'm going to call my broker and suggest this.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced or even better....make it mandatory that you get drunk or high before driving. Maybe I can get a discount on my insurance if I only drive drunk or high....I think I'm going to call my broker and suggest this.

lol

quote:

Originally posted by Cosmic Fur that was precisely his point, Fahad.

i just wanted to spell it out cuz it sounds funny

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree i just wanted to spell it out cuz it sounds funny

Your face is funny!!!

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced if you are driving bombed 50% of the time then I hope you get your licence taken away for good.....and I highly doubt the average is even close to 35%.

what i meant was that i'm bombed half the time. i don't drive intoxicated. my licenSe is just fine the way it is.

quote:

Originally posted by Ub3rBreaker I do also make some mistakes when I drive after smoking, trying to cut that down specially when out at nights like this.

oh superstar... lol

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced Thats a stupid comment....I am sure the number of times you drive sober out number the few times you have driven high so the chances of getting into an accident while sober are greater.

Ha, I didn't mean for the comment to be taken too seriously, I even
disclaimed it by tagging "take that for what it's worth" at the end of the statement.

quote:

Did you know that 33% of all accidents are caused by someone under the influence...that means 64% are caused by sober people....maybe we shouldn't let sober people drive because they cause more accidents.

Under the influence of Marijuana? I've read that there are a lot of accidents caused by people with THC in their system, but the articles I've read those stats in always disclaim the comment by stating that in the vast majority of such cases, the drivers were ALSO under the influence of alcohol.

PS:
Chem, do you work in Insurance or some such? I'm getting that hint from your responses. On a totally unrelated matter, I have a question about fault. My buddy rear-ended a lady on Sunday (the big snow-storm) who was parked in the passing lane on an 80km/h road. She wasn't stuck, her car worked, she had just decided to stop while she made a phone call from her cell. I don't know if her emergency lights were flashing, but even so it would have been tough to tell right away that she was stopped since people drive slowly with their 4-ways on all the time during snow storms. Since she was in park, her brake-lights weren't on. It's my understanding that all rear-endings are the fault of the rear-ender, is that in ALL instances?

double-post

^ Holy shit, what is wrong with people in Canada??? Why does something that happens EVERY DAMN YEAR put Canadians into such a daze? Amazing.

quote:

Originally posted by phlog my licenSe is just fine the way it is.

it's spelt licenCe in Canada... don't believe me? Check your driver's licenCe.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam PS: Chem, do you work in Insurance or some such? I'm getting that hint from your responses. On a totally unrelated matter, I have a question about fault. My buddy rear-ended a lady on Sunday (the big snow-storm) who was parked in the passing lane on an 80km/h road. She wasn't stuck, her car worked, she had just decided to stop while she made a phone call from her cell. I don't know if her emergency lights were flashing, but even so it would have been tough to tell right away that she was stopped since people drive slowly with their 4-ways on all the time during snow storms. Since she was in park, her brake-lights weren't on. It's my understanding that all rear-endings are the fault of the rear-ender, is that in ALL instances?

Chemy is an insurance adjuster, as am I. Fault in Ontario is tricky... we actually have two systems of determining fault in this province; the Fault Determination Rules, and Tort.

The Fault Determination Rules is a regulation under the Insurance Act, which is used to govern how liability (fault) is apportioned for physical damage claims (or claims for damage to one's vehicle). Under the Fault Determination Rules the striking vehicle is at fault for all rear end collisions, the only exception would be if the other party were moving in reverse. Now, the argument could be made that your friend didn't actually rear end the other vehicle as it was in fact parked. Unfortunately, this won't help your friend as the striking vehicle is always at fault for collision with a parked vehicle... no exceptions. So, with regard to the physical damage to the vehicles involved your friend will be considered 100% liable. Under the "no-fault" system this means your friend will have to claim their damages under the collision coverage of his/her policy and pay the appropriate deductible. The other party will claim her damages against the Direct Compensation coverage of her own policy (this normally carries no deductible).

Tort is used to determine liability for personal injury claims. The key in tort is determining negligence... who was negligent? A party is considered negligent if they "acted in a way that a reasonable person would not, or failed to act as a reasonable person would." In this case, a reasonable person would have avoided the stopped vehicle.

Now just because someone was negligent does not mean they are liable (meaning they are responsible for the resulting damages). The test for liability under the tort system is three fold: 1) did the defendant (your friend) have a duty of care to the plaintiff (other party), 2) did the defendant breach that duty of care, 3) did the breach result in the damages (injuries and economic loss) being claimed? If the answer to all these is yes then the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's damages. Under tort it is very likely your friend will also be considered liable. Every motorist has a duty of care to ensure they are operating their vehicle with sufficient prudence and control as to avoid causing damage to the property of others, so yes to question 1. The fact that your friend was unable to avoid collision with a stationary vehicle will be considered proof that they were not operating their vehicle as perscribed above thus they will be considered to have breached their duty of care to the other party, yes to question 2. Now, if the other party has suffered injuries as a result of this collision then they have a right to claim damages... whether or not they will be considered to be a result of the accident requires further investigation but it is presumable that they will be causally linked. Given the brief details you have provided it is probable that your friend will be liable for any personal injuries that have resulted from this collision.

Now, all is not lost.... there are defences to negligence and liability in tort. The best defence in this case would be contributory negligence. Contributory negligence means the extent to which the other party was negligent and thus contributed to their own damages. Again, using the reasonable person test... a reasonable person would not stop in a live lane of a public highway. It is likely that the other party will be considered negligent as well. If this is the case then it must be determined how much the other party's negligence was responsible for the collision. You may be thinking "100%, if she had not stopped the accident wouldn't have happened"... if you're thinking this you're wrong. Her stoping is what we consider to be a remote cause... a remote cause is a condition that indirectly caused an accident (or more simply, something that laid the ground work for an accident... created the conditions necessary to result in an accident). Liability follows what we call the proximate cause... proximate cause is the action that set in motion an unbroken chain of events. In this case your friend failing to take sufficient action to avoid the stoped vehicle is the proximate cause. Getting back to how much liability the other party bears for having stopped in a live lane... this is determined through case law. Essentially, to determine this one must review past cases with similar circumstances to see how past judges have approtioned liability. Without actually doing the research I can suggest that the contributory negligence will be somewhere in the area of 25%. So, in the end your friend will be considered 75% liable for any injuries the other party suffers.

Holy shit... sorry to write so much but it's not really as simple a question as it appears on the surface.

Best thing ever is to get really hammered and drive around lighting all the empty McDonalds bags in your car on fire and throw them at other cars and yelling HADOKEN!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.