Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
And I'm saying alcoholism is not a lifestyle and it does affect how a person does their job.
Drunk trucking: Protected?
- Thread starter tbburg
- Start date
No4x4Yet
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Long Island NY
If your drinking all day everyday yeah. But goin out and getting wasted everynight is alcoholism too. But if they make it to work and get their job done whos to complain what they do on their own time?
scottmcneal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- not here
Do you know about ALCOHOLISM? I do first hand sir, i havent had a drink in over 20 years. Most, if not all my friends didn't even know i had a problem, i worked 50 to 60 hours a week and always did a great job. So i wouldn't say it affects everybody the same way would you? I ran the day crew at one shop, being i was a shop foremen and all.
To this day, all of my old bosses(both of them) would hire me back in a flash if i moved back to that area again.
It isn't a lifestyle for sure, it is a disease and i still have it. This is why i still don't have just ONE BEER or DRINK.
Cheers
xcm
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Southern Oregon
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
What? How does being gay qualify as a disability or affect your ability to drive? Aside maybe from the limp wrist problem...
I'd have to say that a true alcoholic most likely does drink and drive, probably on a somewhat regular basis. A drunk on the other can go out, get wasted, and not drink and drive. An alcoholic almost always has a drink. The difference would come in if this was a man who realized his problem, sought treatment, and has reformed himself. I've known a few who've gone through that and wouldn't have a problem trusting them. The biggest thing you hear is that you never stop being an alcoholic, but you can get sober.
You're one of the people I was referring to in the highlighted portion. I just didn't want to call you out.
I don't know alcoholism first hand. I've seen it second and third hand though. The training we received in the Marine Corps specified that an alcoholic has no control over the problem, until they can get sober. Like you said, you don't have ONE beer, it would probably quickly turn into a lot more than just one, right? I would hire a "reformed", sober alcoholic. I would not hire someone who showed any signs of being in the middle of it and not seeking help. The guy I replaced at my last job was an unreformed alcoholic. He disappeared during the day randomly, tried driving through the warehouse doors with a forklift, almost ran someone over with the work truck, slept in a cot behind the gear, on the racks, sometimes overnight because his wife would randomly kick him out, and finally lost his license but never told anyone. He was fired when the company was informed that in order for him to remain employed, they would be required to install breathalyzers on every vehicle in the company fleet, company wide. Yeah, not all are affected the same, but I'd rather be safe and not have alcoholics behind the wheel if they haven't sought out help.
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
Smartphones typically have GPS tracking on some level - so that can be readily used to measure speed.
Also, since the signal strength of a cell tower is known, if a cellphone is able to track signal strength (it usually can,) it can determine motion and usually provide an estimate of ground-track speed via an internal "S-meter" and time/strength variation.
Therefore, you'd be measuring speed (using either technique) directly - you could calculate acceleration, but it wouldn't be a direct measurement.
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
It is somewhere between a disease and a condition.
There are physiological and biochemical effects in alcoholics (think of a magnified version of what you get when you drink, coupled with an enhanced stimulus/reward reflex, I believe) that are not present in people who are not alcoholic.
This is why there are no "cured" alcoholics - merely "wet" alcoholics and "dry" alcoholics. (Yes, and alcoholic may also be "functional" - and I've known a couple - but they often do not remain "functional" for long, as the need for booze overtakes the need to be functional.)
@scottmcneal - if you've become a "dry" alcoholic - and have remained so for over twenty years! - I commend you. I've had to kick a couple of habits myself - and I was worried at one time that I was an alcoholic myself (turned out I wasn't - I was just a drunk. Spent nine months bombed on cheap Scotch before I figured out "You can't run away from trouble, there ain't no place that far.")
You also sound like an example of a "functional" alcoholic before you dried out - and I take it you sought a solution to the problem before your need for booze overtook your need for work?
But - twenty years of sobriety is something. Remind me if I ever see you - we'll hoist one (Pepsi - I won't drink in your honour.) Many people don't understand the dedication it takes to even kick a habit in the first place (smoking, drinking, ...) and for you to have the moral fibre to stay off of it takes far more strength than most people will ever realise...
And you thought quitting smoking was bad, didn't you? Siddown and have a chat with Scott sometime - I've talked to alcoholics that have kicked, and have a pretty good idea what they've gone through...
Per the cell phone thing. I've thought that an in car jammer that would only allow 911 calls would be a solution that I could support.
I, like a majority of people, think that I wouldn't like to live in the 19th century legally or socially. The world got a lot more complex since then. I do think that we have a lot of unnecessary laws. But clean air is necessary for health. Clean water also. Etc, etc. For the most part you can't go back.
We do tend to make a lot of victimless crimes way more important than they are. The State just shouldn't have that power. Once you're adult (I wouldn't put that at less than 25) you should be able to do as you please where others aren't involved. Otherwise it's just a matter of time before they'll be hunting down people who eat hamburgers.
I, like a majority of people, think that I wouldn't like to live in the 19th century legally or socially. The world got a lot more complex since then. I do think that we have a lot of unnecessary laws. But clean air is necessary for health. Clean water also. Etc, etc. For the most part you can't go back.
We do tend to make a lot of victimless crimes way more important than they are. The State just shouldn't have that power. Once you're adult (I wouldn't put that at less than 25) you should be able to do as you please where others aren't involved. Otherwise it's just a matter of time before they'll be hunting down people who eat hamburgers.
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
For the first point - I could agree with that.
Second? Yes, things have gotten more complex. Yes, more laws are probably needed now than a hundred years ago. I shan't argue with you there (a good portion of the laws that should/would be immediately subject to rescission are laws that we just don't need anymore. Then laws favouring "special interests" come next. Then, "preferential regulations," followed by "consensual/victimless crimes."
(Regulations differ from laws only somewhat - but they can be ripped through as well. Most of 26CFR should be discarded out of hand, 49CFR needs some serious review and the highlighter applied for sections to be rescinded/redacted.
(Anything that was passed by publication in the Congressional Register - and therefore not subject to public debate or vote - should be rescinded out of hand. If it's not important enough to stand a vote or debate, it's not needed. And yet, if something is published in the Congressional Register and not challenged within sixty days, it becomes law. A lot of backdoor regs & laws get passed that way...)
If they want to hunt down people that eat hamburgers, they'll have a hard time. Most of us kick, bite, shoot back, and I doubt we've all had all of our shots... I do agree with you tho - once you pass the Age of Majority (whatever age that is - and make it one age for everything. None of this 18/21 crap...) the government should be treating you with benign neglect, and only bothering you if you ask them for help or do something wrong.
I would vastly prefer such a system, but that would first require restoration of the Social Contract and for people to think somewhere past the end of their collective nose and to actually consider the potential impact of their actions on other people and act accordingly.
Why am I so hot on cellphone use while driving? I see it all the time here in the South Ghey, and from what I see, I think it can reasonably be considered a public menace. Agree? Disagree? Discuss.
As far as the original topic - commercial drivers who blow at 0.01% should be stripped - it's not a "two-ton missile" they're in charge of, it's a "twenty-ton" missile! That makes it an even greater threat to public safety (ask anyone who has seen a roads incident involving a loaded semi - or, better, responded to one.)
What you do in your off time is your own business. If you are an alcoholic, but you show up cold sober for work and exercise the pilot's rule of "twelve hours between bottle and throttle," I honestly have no trouble with it. Show up with a little in your system - alcoholic or not - termination should be immediate.
There are cases of "functional alcoholics" (typically early on) who only drink off-duty - alcoholism is, in most cases, a progressive condition.
My main trouble with the system of law is that it is a created system, which means it was made complex. There are about as many legal specialties as there are medical specialties now - but in medicine, specialisation is often necessary for digging deeper into certain conditions, and the system of human physiology is something we've inherited. Our legal system has accreted so badly that it's probably approaching the point of collapsing under its own weight, and I have a problem with that.
Besides, have you ever been to a law library? Cripes - it's nuts! Far too much paper involved (I also have a problem with precedents having the effect of law - it makes a trial a conflict between technicians. I think that each and every case should be tried on its own merits irrespective of prior interpretation of the law. If the law is badly written, it may be modified. If the law should not be, it may be struck. But, I shouldn't have to look up the law I'm charged with violating, then spend the next four months looking through prior legal cases to see about a way to weasel out of it...)
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
If you can't make a phone call and drive your car at the same time you shouldn't have a license...period.
Millions do it everyday (texting included) and have no issues at all. The few that do cause problems doing it are generally retarded drivers even when they aren't on the phone and therefore shouldn't be driving at all.
Millions do it everyday (texting included) and have no issues at all. The few that do cause problems doing it are generally retarded drivers even when they aren't on the phone and therefore shouldn't be driving at all.
Sniggs
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Western Washington
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
Troo dat.
However, I'm honestly thinking that banning the activity itself would be easier - politically - than reforming driver education and setting up so that people can and do fail, who very well should damned well fail!
I see people all the time on the roads out here who should get no closer to being in control of a motor vehicle than telling the hackdriver where to go, or putting a buck in the farebox.
Probably the first thing they could do to enhance roadway safety out here and reduce congestion? Drivers' literature and testing in English ONLY!
- English is the working language of this country - if you run into someone (literally!) chances are you're going to need to speak it. An interpreter should not be needed.
- Every cop speaks English. So, you should be able to as well.
- Learning English (as an immigrant) shows you can learn - so you can learn to drive as well (since learning to drive is a good deal simpler than learning English.)
- "Ethnic bias" would disappear in the written test. (Story: When I mustered out of the AF, I decided to stay in CA. I had to get a CA driver's license. I failed the written three times on the run - not because I screwed up, but because the test was badly written and the "correct" answers selected were plain wrong. Instead of waiting two months to come back and take it again - I'd already spent six hours there - I asked to take it in another language.
The test was easier in Arabic. Four years later, it was also easier in Greek. Ethnic bias...)
- If you're going to be here long enough to need a driver's license, you're going to need to speak English as well.
I look as this as a variation on "State Law" saying that election materials must be printed in at least:
- English
- Spanish
- Tagalog
- Korean
- Vietnamese
- Mandarin
- Cantonese
- And those are just the languages I've seen! For all I know, election stuff is printed in the same 36 languages that DMV stuff is...
I thought you had to take a citizenship test - in English - and the Oath of citizenship - in English - in order to be a citizen and vote? Am I missing something? That shows there is no reason for election goodies to be printed in anything other than English, and that should apply for any other "permanent" or "semi-permanent" documentation (driver's license? Business license?) as well.
Even if you're just going to get a Green Card, you're still going to need English. If you're going to stay in this country for more than a week, it would be helpful to know how to communicate "with the natives" - and make an effort to dial down your accent, please, so I can understand you in return. (I'm not saying to get rid of it entirely - Hell, I like some accents! Particularly on women's voices. But, form words that I can understand when you speak, please...)
I do not see a need for having a phone used in a car except in emergencies. I'm more than old enough to remember when it wasn't possible for literally everyone to have a phone in a car. It should never have been allowed anyway.
And by the way,
The stats are in. If you phone and drive you're as dangerous as a drunk driver. If you text and drive you're even more dangerous.
So for the record,
That's my daughter driving. If you hit her car and kill her the Accident Report better not say driving while phoning or texting. I'll be visiting you.
And by the way,
The stats are in. If you phone and drive you're as dangerous as a drunk driver. If you text and drive you're even more dangerous.
So for the record,
That's my daughter driving. If you hit her car and kill her the Accident Report better not say driving while phoning or texting. I'll be visiting you.
what about all of the other things that we're putting in cars now a days?
navigation systems? DVD Players? Hell, even the radio causes distracted driving.
I got hit 3 weeks ago by a girl that had dropped her phone on the floor. It was so important that she have it back that instant that she reached for the floorboard while driving and rearended me sitting at a stoplight. I was on the phone with ForeWheeler at the time. That very easily could have been anything she dropped and was reaching for.
She didn't have the common sense to just wait until she was stopped at a light or in a parking lot before taking her eyes off the road to retrieve it.
What about Police officers? At any given moment their job requires them to be on any number of devices.
Cell phone
Radio
in car computer
camera system
lights and sirens
Stupid people cause accidents, not technology.
navigation systems? DVD Players? Hell, even the radio causes distracted driving.
I got hit 3 weeks ago by a girl that had dropped her phone on the floor. It was so important that she have it back that instant that she reached for the floorboard while driving and rearended me sitting at a stoplight. I was on the phone with ForeWheeler at the time. That very easily could have been anything she dropped and was reaching for.
She didn't have the common sense to just wait until she was stopped at a light or in a parking lot before taking her eyes off the road to retrieve it.
What about Police officers? At any given moment their job requires them to be on any number of devices.
Cell phone
Radio
in car computer
camera system
lights and sirens
Stupid people cause accidents, not technology.
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
Professional drivers show the same effects of driving while texting as studies done using regular people. Car and Driver did a test and they were just as bad texting as drunk. These are guys who drive for a living, many of whom are experienced amateur racers. Can't really argue that texting while driving only affects idiots.
A more accurate statement might me that technology in the hands of idiots causes crashes. Anyone who tries to watch a DVD in the dash while driving is an idiot and if they didn't have said tech, wouldn't have had the opportunity to prove it. Pull over to set your GPS, don't take your eyes off the road for that long in traffic. As far as phones, I'm all for the hands free because while it's been shown that being on the phone is distracting, I fail to see how it's anymore distracting than a conversation in the car. Hands free allows you to keep your hands on the wheel.
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
Bingo!!!
I drive truck and get away texting all the time but I'm not stupid about where and when I do it. If I'm in busy traffic or traffic at all I wouldn't even think about it but I spend a lot of time in very remote places like Nevada and Wyoming where there is nothing or nobody to hit.
15 years and close to 3 million miles and I've never had an accident...my fault or someone else's. That doesn't happen by being careless.
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
yes, you but you are not an idiot apparently. 
Get an idiot texting and they'll do it in heavy traffic. You have to remember, our laws are written to the lowest common denominator and lately that's pretty low.
Get an idiot texting and they'll do it in heavy traffic. You have to remember, our laws are written to the lowest common denominator and lately that's pretty low.
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
So fine the crap out of the people who get caught doing stupid things. Don't take away from the people who can deal with it.
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
Wait, so make it legal yet fine those who do it? What?
iwannadie
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Gilbert, Az
Not to detract from the subject too much but, how do you guys feel about random DUI check points?
I know some people hate them as an invasion and assuming people are guilty or having to prove your innocence and all that which I can understand that but still.
One guy said his main gripe with them is that they ask where you are coming from and that is an invasion of privacy. I think the asking where you are coming from is a general question to just hear you speak. It's not like you have to give them an address of where you are coming from or going to. I've always answered vaguely and they never pursued it at all.
I know some people hate them as an invasion and assuming people are guilty or having to prove your innocence and all that which I can understand that but still.
One guy said his main gripe with them is that they ask where you are coming from and that is an invasion of privacy. I think the asking where you are coming from is a general question to just hear you speak. It's not like you have to give them an address of where you are coming from or going to. I've always answered vaguely and they never pursued it at all.
