Just to set my mind at rest please tell me you've never laughed at or forwarded on a joke that's in bad taste following a disaster where someone or a group of people have died?
Just to set my mind at rest please tell me you've never laughed at or forwarded on a joke that's in bad taste following a disaster where someone or a group of people have died?
I'm on the fence, but there's a difference between sending it to a group of people who you know will find it funny and posting it on a public forum.
Just to set my mind at rest please tell me you've never laughed at or forwarded on a joke that's in bad taste following a disaster where someone or a group of people have died?
Thank you BFR for asking the question I always ask.
They just released the toxicology reports and he was apparently twice the legal alcohol limit, so he was mildly pissed rather than actually off his face completely.
I guess its true to say though that when you are driving a car like the one he was driving then you need to be 100% focussed, make a mistake at the speeds he was probably driving and the results will be fatal.
And not just his own life but his passenger as well. It makes no difference whether he was 'mildly pissed' or 'off his face completely'. He was over the legal maximum by a significant margin and driving at very high speed and that show no regard for anyone else who might be on the road - let alone his passenger. I'm with Sadiejane's June 21 comment on this.
And not just his own life but his passenger as well. It makes no difference whether he was 'mildly pissed' or 'off his face completely'. He was over the legal maximum by a significant margin and driving at very high speed and that show no regard for anyone else who might be on the road - let alone his passenger. I'm with Sadiejane's June 21 comment on this.
It's fair to assume that his passenger had been drinking as well.
And not just his own life but his passenger as well. It makes no difference whether he was 'mildly pissed' or 'off his face completely'. He was over the legal maximum by a significant margin and driving at very high speed and that show no regard for anyone else who might be on the road - let alone his passenger. I'm with Sadiejane's June 21 comment on this.
I understand what you are saying but there is a big difference between driving when you are 0.10 (which he was) and driving at 0.5 which means you are totally off your face.
To give you some idea of what this means in real terms, an average male would record 0.05 if they consumed just 2.5 pints of medium strength beer in an hour, if they stuck to just two pints they would be under the limit.
A recording of 0.10 suggests that he had probably consumed about 4-5 pints (or the equivalent in other drinks) over a couple of hours, that amount would make a regular drinker a little tipsy but by no means off their face drunk.
The point is that you would walk around at 0.1 Blood-Alcohol level and feel that you were absolutely fine to drive, especially if you had - like this gentleman had - consumed the drinks over a lengthy period of time.
There is a big difference between driving at 0.1 and feeling OK and driving at 0.2 and above when you know you are clearly shit-faced and should be nowhere near a car. To be clear, I am absolutely not saying that it is OK to drink-drive but just pointing out that there are differing levels of intoxication.
I have a friend here in Australia (where drink driving is far more prevalent than in the UK) who works in the Traffic Police and he says that most of the really bad DD-related accidents occur when drivers are in that 0.2+ range where drivers are totally off their trolley and either fall asleep at the wheel or drive way too aggressively and lose control of the car.
If anything, he says that they often catch DD's in the lower-ranges (0.05-0.1) because these guys drive very conservatively precisely because they don't want to get pulled by the old bill or have an accident.
I have never driven drunk and never would but I have friends who have been done for it and on every occasion they have been in the category of having had a small number of drinks and felt certain they would be OK to drive but then narrowly failed a breath test.
One time last year I was the Designated Driver and just drunk four 230ml light-beers (2.9% AV) all night and when I got stopped I blew 0.03, if I had had another beer I might have nudged over the limit despite feeling sober as a judge.
Now if I am the driver I don't even bother with the light-beers, I stay on the soft drinks.
Ormiston 'feel that you were absolutely fine to drive...despite feeling sober as a judge'. That is the problem, everyone's judgement is adversely affected by alcohol so that they think they are fine to drive - and some that they are fine to drive fast. A doctor explained to me that no-one is a better driver when they have had a drink, no matter what they think. (In fact if they are, they shouldn't be driving in the first place.) I am now firmly in the soft drinks brigade if I am driving. The limit is really quite generous and so there is no reason to exceed it. I wonder if the comments on here would have been quite so generous if he had killed other sober road users?
And not just his own life but his passenger as well. It makes no difference whether he was 'mildly pissed' or 'off his face completely'. He was over the legal maximum by a significant margin and driving at very high speed and that show no regard for anyone else who might be on the road - let alone his passenger. I'm with Sadiejane's June 21 comment on this.
I understand what you are saying but there is a big difference between driving when you are 0.10 (which he was) and driving at 0.5 which means you are totally off your face.
To give you some idea of what this means in real terms, an average male would record 0.05 if they consumed just 2.5 pints of medium strength beer in an hour, if they stuck to just two pints they would be under the limit.
A recording of 0.10 suggests that he had probably consumed about 4-5 pints (or the equivalent in other drinks) over a couple of hours, that amount would make a regular drinker a little tipsy but by no means off their face drunk.
The point is that you would walk around at 0.1 Blood-Alcohol level and feel that you were absolutely fine to drive, especially if you had - like this gentleman had - consumed the drinks over a lengthy period of time.
There is a big difference between driving at 0.1 and feeling OK and driving at 0.2 and above when you know you are clearly shit-faced and should be nowhere near a car. To be clear, I am absolutely not saying that it is OK to drink-drive but just pointing out that there are differing levels of intoxication.
I have a friend here in Australia (where drink driving is far more prevalent than in the UK) who works in the Traffic Police and he says that most of the really bad DD-related accidents occur when drivers are in that 0.2+ range where drivers are totally off their trolley and either fall asleep at the wheel or drive way too aggressively and lose control of the car.
If anything, he says that they often catch DD's in the lower-ranges (0.05-0.1) because these guys drive very conservatively precisely because they don't want to get pulled by the old bill or have an accident.
I have never driven drunk and never would but I have friends who have been done for it and on every occasion they have been in the category of having had a small number of drinks and felt certain they would be OK to drive but then narrowly failed a breath test.
One time last year I was the Designated Driver and just drunk four 230ml light-beers (2.9% AV) all night and when I got stopped I blew 0.03, if I had had another beer I might have nudged over the limit despite feeling sober as a judge.
Now if I am the driver I don't even bother with the light-beers, I stay on the soft drinks.
4-5 pints + driving = Moron
At the end of the day he still KNOWINGLY got in the driving seat whilst over the limit and KNOWINGLY drove more than 110 MPH (if he was sober that makes it worse because he knew he being, excuse the punn, a 'jackass') The point is all of you that defend him just because he is dead would all be saying something completely different if he survived but killed a pedestrian or another motorist, or even a child. If he was in court up on charges of 'death by dangerous driving' and 'driving whilst under the influence' and it was an innocent family of 5 on their way back from vacation that he killed, you will all be saying throw the book at him.
I have been in a car accident caused by a speeding drink-driver and it has affected my whole life, it was 10 years ago but mentally I have still not recovered, I had a new born baby at the time that I was unable to hold, feed, dress etc for 3 months, that affected the bonding (from her not me) and I still feel that the relationship is not as it could have been. I also can't get in a car with out feeling sick, close my eyes whenever I go round a roundabout, have screaming out bursts and the occasional panic attack. Would what this man has done to me be okay if he was a celebrity? would it have been okay if he had perished? or would it of only been okay if he was Ryan Dunn???
"A doctor explained to me that no-one is a better driver when they have had a drink, no matter what they think."
I think there's two things here. In terms of baseline cognitive skills I have no doubts that your doctor is correct. Perception, speed of thought, clarity of decision making and manual dexterity are all better when unhindered by alcohol, and that applies to everyone. However to jump from this to "no-one is a better driver" is actually a massive leap, and one that is not necessarily true. The reason being, that people aren't always as good good at driving as they think: Drivers that are perfectly sober have lapses of concentration; they break the speed limit; they break other rules of the road in the name of expedience; they neglect to signal; they do other things (change cds, make phone calls, read maps, chat to passengers, put their make up on...) whilst driving; they tailgate; they signal when going straight on at roundabouts. I think what Ormiston is saying – and if its not, it's what I'm saying – is that someone who has had a small amount of alcohol and is aware of that fact may put in the additional care and effort to counter-balance any deficiency. They drive slowly, they always signal, they force themselves to keep their eye on the road.
Now, I do not say all this because I think drink driving is ok. I say it because I would like everyone to improve their driving. In this country (and from what I've seen, elsewhere), we have two fixations with driving. One is alcohol; the other is speed. I have no wish to defend either speeders or drunk-drivers, but I think that if we really want to cut accidents we need to focus on other things and not pretend that someone is necessarily a better driver than someone else because they are sober. The percentage of road accidents where alcohol was involved is about 15%; accidents caused by speeding – about 5%. That means that 85% of accidents are non-alcohol related, 95% are not speed related, and at least 80% have nothing to do with either. All the time that we place such a focus on these two problems, we let the real danger – simply not looking properly – continue. 38% of accidents and 58% of serious injuries/fatalities to pedestrians are caused by nothing more than neglecting to look properly.
We need to stop thinking that we are necessarily good drivers, just because we don't turn crystals green.
Ormiston 'feel that you were absolutely fine to drive...despite feeling sober as a judge'. That is the problem, everyone's judgement is adversely affected by alcohol so that they think they are fine to drive - and some that they are fine to drive fast. A doctor explained to me that no-one is a better driver when they have had a drink, no matter what they think. (In fact if they are, they shouldn't be driving in the first place.) I am now firmly in the soft drinks brigade if I am driving. The limit is really quite generous and so there is no reason to exceed it. I wonder if the comments on here would have been quite so generous if he had killed other sober road users?
Very true, I suppose alcohol also gives you that feeling of invincibility that makes you convinced you can drive even after downing 10 pints.
SadieJane Whilst your experience is obviously tragic, I don't think anyone is saying what he did was fine, at best people are saying it was unlucky.
The facts are he drove over the limit, at excessive speed, in a high powered car. He killed himself and his passenger. On another day he may have got away with it. He may have before.
If he had survived he would be in prison. He didn't. Therefore we mourn the loss of his passing. Do you think his death should got unremarked upon because he didn't kill a family of five in the process?
If it had been Ryan Dunn who caused your accident it would have made no difference to you or the situation your found yourself in. But yes it would have been news because he is famous. It would have been news if he had crashed his car and everyone had walked away because he is famous. This is not right or wrong, it is just the world of celebrity we live in.
Other people have crashes and die everyday which are not news, everyday people walk away from situations like this which are not news.
I don't think it was unlucky at all I think it was lucky. Lucky that there were no unfortunates in his path.
As for mourning his passing, as I said it is sad that such a young man made the wrong choices and as a result lost his life, it is even sadder because said young man was a role model to others.
I don't think it was unlucky at all I think it was lucky. Lucky that there were no unfortunates in his path.
As for mourning his passing, as I said it is sad that such a young man made the wrong choices and as a result lost his life, it is even sadder because said young man was a role model to others.
To be completely honest, if Ryan Dunn was anybody's role model they need to have a long hard think about themselves.
i didn't mean 'role model' as such, wrong wording. What I meant to say was, no matter how bad someone is, if they are in the public eye there are generally people, be it right or wrong, that look up to them. In the 2 above examples, not very clever people but nonetheless that's the way it is.
Comments
Just to set my mind at rest please tell me you've never laughed at or forwarded on a joke that's in bad taste following a disaster where someone or a group of people have died?
And this is a burning Porsche inferno.
They just released the toxicology reports and he was apparently twice the legal alcohol limit, so he was mildly pissed rather than actually off his face completely.
I guess its true to say though that when you are driving a car like the one he was driving then you need to be 100% focussed, make a mistake at the speeds he was probably driving and the results will be fatal.
Terrible shame, what a waste of a life.
It's fair to assume that his passenger had been drinking as well.
I understand what you are saying but there is a big difference between driving when you are 0.10 (which he was) and driving at 0.5 which means you are totally off your face.
To give you some idea of what this means in real terms, an average male would record 0.05 if they consumed just 2.5 pints of medium strength beer in an hour, if they stuck to just two pints they would be under the limit.
A recording of 0.10 suggests that he had probably consumed about 4-5 pints (or the equivalent in other drinks) over a couple of hours, that amount would make a regular drinker a little tipsy but by no means off their face drunk.
The point is that you would walk around at 0.1 Blood-Alcohol level and feel that you were absolutely fine to drive, especially if you had - like this gentleman had - consumed the drinks over a lengthy period of time.
There is a big difference between driving at 0.1 and feeling OK and driving at 0.2 and above when you know you are clearly shit-faced and should be nowhere near a car. To be clear, I am absolutely not saying that it is OK to drink-drive but just pointing out that there are differing levels of intoxication.
I have a friend here in Australia (where drink driving is far more prevalent than in the UK) who works in the Traffic Police and he says that most of the really bad DD-related accidents occur when drivers are in that 0.2+ range where drivers are totally off their trolley and either fall asleep at the wheel or drive way too aggressively and lose control of the car.
If anything, he says that they often catch DD's in the lower-ranges (0.05-0.1) because these guys drive very conservatively precisely because they don't want to get pulled by the old bill or have an accident.
I have never driven drunk and never would but I have friends who have been done for it and on every occasion they have been in the category of having had a small number of drinks and felt certain they would be OK to drive but then narrowly failed a breath test.
One time last year I was the Designated Driver and just drunk four 230ml light-beers (2.9% AV) all night and when I got stopped I blew 0.03, if I had had another beer I might have nudged over the limit despite feeling sober as a judge.
Now if I am the driver I don't even bother with the light-beers, I stay on the soft drinks.
'feel that you were absolutely fine to drive...despite feeling sober as a judge'. That is the problem, everyone's judgement is adversely affected by alcohol so that they think they are fine to drive - and some that they are fine to drive fast. A doctor explained to me that no-one is a better driver when they have had a drink, no matter what they think. (In fact if they are, they shouldn't be driving in the first place.) I am now firmly in the soft drinks brigade if I am driving. The limit is really quite generous and so there is no reason to exceed it. I wonder if the comments on here would have been quite so generous if he had killed other sober road users?
"A doctor explained to me that no-one is a better driver when they have had a drink, no matter what they think."
I think there's two things here. In terms of baseline cognitive skills I have no doubts that your doctor is correct. Perception, speed of thought, clarity of decision making and manual dexterity are all better when unhindered by alcohol, and that applies to everyone. However to jump from this to "no-one is a better driver" is actually a massive leap, and one that is not necessarily true. The reason being, that people aren't always as good good at driving as they think: Drivers that are perfectly sober have lapses of concentration; they break the speed limit; they break other rules of the road in the name of expedience; they neglect to signal; they do other things (change cds, make phone calls, read maps, chat to passengers, put their make up on...) whilst driving; they tailgate; they signal when going straight on at roundabouts. I think what Ormiston is saying – and if its not, it's what I'm saying – is that someone who has had a small amount of alcohol and is aware of that fact may put in the additional care and effort to counter-balance any deficiency. They drive slowly, they always signal, they force themselves to keep their eye on the road.
Now, I do not say all this because I think drink driving is ok. I say it because I would like everyone to improve their driving. In this country (and from what I've seen, elsewhere), we have two fixations with driving. One is alcohol; the other is speed. I have no wish to defend either speeders or drunk-drivers, but I think that if we really want to cut accidents we need to focus on other things and not pretend that someone is necessarily a better driver than someone else because they are sober. The percentage of road accidents where alcohol was involved is about 15%; accidents caused by speeding – about 5%. That means that 85% of accidents are non-alcohol related, 95% are not speed related, and at least 80% have nothing to do with either. All the time that we place such a focus on these two problems, we let the real danger – simply not looking properly – continue. 38% of accidents and 58% of serious injuries/fatalities to pedestrians are caused by nothing more than neglecting to look properly.
We need to stop thinking that we are necessarily good drivers, just because we don't turn crystals green.
SadieJane Whilst your experience is obviously tragic, I don't think anyone is saying what he did was fine, at best people are saying it was unlucky.
The facts are he drove over the limit, at excessive speed, in a high powered car. He killed himself and his passenger. On another day he may have got away with it. He may have before.
If he had survived he would be in prison. He didn't. Therefore we mourn the loss of his passing. Do you think his death should got unremarked upon because he didn't kill a family of five in the process?
If it had been Ryan Dunn who caused your accident it would have made no difference to you or the situation your found yourself in. But yes it would have been news because he is famous. It would have been news if he had crashed his car and everyone had walked away because he is famous. This is not right or wrong, it is just the world of celebrity we live in.
Other people have crashes and die everyday which are not news, everyday people walk away from situations like this which are not news.
Can't agree with that at all, just because someone is in the public eye does not make them a role model.