quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Okay geez... some of you guys obviously: (a) don't drive Picture this: you've got a tiny buzz (twice the legal limit is still a VERY low amount of alcohol), you're driving along an empty two-lane street with a posted speed limit of 70 km/h (where people usually drive at 90+ if the traffic is light) in the left lane. You see a truck at the traffic light ahead with no markings and no lights on. It's 3 AM, so you can hardly see anything to begin with - you see the green light, honk at them, eventually you realize that the truck is in fact not going anywhere, and swerve to avoid it, but since the truck is over 15 ft. wide, you don't make it and hit the back. And a ridiculous number of highway accidents are caused because a truck driver either goes way too fast (so people can't pass) or suddenly stops (because people behind can't see what's going on). So quit ragging on Canada!

First, "tiny buzz" is a subjective call on your part. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Canada's limit is .08. For a 160 lb. man to be at .16, he would have needed to have more than 8 drinks in 3 hours. That's a "tiny buzz?" (There are many BAC calculators online if you want to double check). I'd also like to know where you got your information on truck drivers causing accidents. Here in the states, I believe that's very much not true.

Now for your scenario. It's at night and "You see a truck at the traffic light ahead with no markings and no lights on." What is the first thing any rational person would do? Change lanes or brake, or at least try to discern the circumstances. Next you say "you see the green light, honk at them." If you're already honking at them, presumably you know something is wrong. Usually people honk only after a few seconds of trouble... giving them plenty of time to slow down. So you continue to drive directly at them? "eventually you realize that the truck is in fact not going anywhere." If you didn't already realize this, then why were you honking? Brakes are a more effective means of avoiding accidents than honking.

That's utterly ridiculous. If I didn't know better and weren't giving you benefit of the doubt, I'd say it's you who's never driven. However, there are certainly scenarios that would cause a crash even in a sober person. Suppose the truck is around a steep bend. Or maybe the road is not well-lit and it's impossible to see the truck until it's too late. But like we've already said... we don't know. We do know, however, that the driver had a BAC of ~.16, which almost certainly affected his reaction and decision abilities severely. Keep in mind nobody else ran into the truck (yes, I know it was 3 A.M.)

In any case, I understand that there are drivers who are, even in their normal state, worse than drunk drivers. Had one of them hit the truck, nobody would be arguing. The fact is, nobody else did (and without further information, I can only guess that nobody else would). Twice the limit, man... he brought it on himself.

Conclusion: He should get the money, just as any sober bad driver would. After all, the trucker can't use "probably nobody else would hit it" as a defense. Other than that... well, he obviously had it coming.

First, please don't edit my post and take things out of context.

Second, yes, I've never driven, I'm paying the money for these leasing and insurance papers so I can leave my car outside in the parking lot and NEVER DRIVE IT. How perceptive of you.

Third, truck drivers cause less accidents in the states because the trucking laws there are stricter than Canada's, which again goes to show that the guy who left it illegally probably got off easy.

The man's weight was not specified, and alcohol induces different effects in different people, so perhaps you're jumping to conclusions just a little bit here.

Maybe not everyone drives as well as you do, Flyboy, and trying to "discern the circumstances" as you say may have been a lot more difficult in his situation than you make it sound. Especially when drunk. Yes, the driver was drunk, but there's a reason we have those laws for truck drivers! They wouldn't exist if the government didn't think it were possible for even a sober driver (and not necessarily a BAD one) to have a problem! Again, before you jump to conclusions, which you've done several times in your post, maybe you should find out who he is and look up his driving record? Because it did not specify anywhere that he was a "bad driver."

I would never, ever drive drunk, I think that's the stupidest fucking thing in the world to do. However, just because this guy decided to be an idiot and do it, doesn't mean he's fully responsible for everything that happened to him - if the stalled truck driver hadn't been negligent, there would have been no damage to anyone. That is the basis for a lawsuit, any other way would be unfair.

That is all.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

I havent read the article, CBC apparently cant find it.

Does the drunk deserve damages? yea. Of course he does. Hes got memory and personality problems..ok. Now what that means I dont know. Maybe he cant tie his shoes, maybe he can only remember pi to 5 digits, and not 8 like he used to. I cant say. I doubt the article says. How much he is compensated is determined by how much 'damage' was done to him. And im sure doctors and scientists tried to quantify this, while an economist tried to predict the lost earnings of the victim and bla bla bla..
so he was awarded 600K. I can deal with that. -- Now at the same time, he most definetly should be charged with Driving under the influence. He will probably have insurance problems in the future, and if I were the trucker, I would counter sue for Damages done by teh driver(assuming that he had the roadside hazard cones/flares set up)

but really all we should all be saying is
'I dont know enough details about this situation, so I wont make any judgement on it at all'

___________________
Retired TA.

1) The post was edited for brevity. Each of the statements mentioned was self-contextual.

2) If you read carefully, you'll notice I acknowledged that you probably do drive. My discernment was based on the ridiculousness of your premise, not the amount of money you're paying for your car.

3) Interesting to know!

4) Correct, I don't know how much he weighs. However, given that his BAC was ostensibly .16, I presented a plausible circumstance. You'll note that BAC is normalized with respect to weight, so regardless of how much he weighs, it's equivalent to a 160 lb man with 8 drinks in 3 hours. I imagine that this calculated analysis is at least better than declaring he had a "slight buzz" with no data. Who is jumping to conclusions here?

I never stated that this man was a bad driver, but that his drunk driving was presumably comparable to that of a sober bad driver. I agree with you that the man should be awarded damages. Had he not been drinking, who knows what would have happened. I'll bet he thinks about that every day of his life, with whatever he has left to think with.

Laws are set up for the lowest common denominator. In this case, assuming he was a good driver normally, he put himself in that boat. Unfortunate.