Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I also acknowledge that was a rant also, it just drives me crazy with this logic. I know you and your people differ with us suburbanites on how to live, but honestly I never would expect somebody to try blame DUI's on something other than the person.
No one saying that the driver isn't at fault. I heard this idea (while in a car) from someone who had experience with both universities. He said he believes there is more drunk driving at the state university here rather than the school we both went to for undergraduate both the students here (as well as parties / nightlife) are further apart compared to the other university which was denser and more compact. The person who said this was definitely not anti-car, and he doesn't live in an "urban walkable" area at all. Neither he say that the DUIs here are not the fault of the driver / drinker.
Please, by all means make that argument. It seems quite vital to the topic of drunk driving. We are anxiously awaiting what you have to say.
Of course I wouldn't make that argument, thats stupid, just like its stupid to make the argument car dependancy is to blame for DUI's. Its amazing, i used to be one you people, but I never found myself blaming car dependancy on a DUI.
That still doesn't change the fact the person is responsible for his/her own actions. Being in a car dependant area has nothing to do with it. You can get a taxis, you can take a train, you can take a bus, you can call somebody. If that person refuses to do that, that is his/her fault, not being in a car dependant area.
And I completely agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that there will be more drunk driving in a car dependent area. It does not matter to me as a non-drunk driver or pedestrian or cyclist that the drunk driver is 100% to blame for his actions (which they are), only that they are driving drunk.
Why are you arguing with me there; when I said nothing that disagreed with you?
Than can i make the arguement that when people get attacked on the streets, its because they depend too much on walking instead of driving everywhere?
Possibly, techinally yes, more pedestrians increase the likelihood of pedestrians getting attacked. But more pedestrians also creates more eyes on the street, discouraging crime.
I could also say if there were cars there would be no car accidents, which is more similar to what I'm saying.
Of course I wouldn't make that argument, thats stupid, just like its stupid to make the argument car dependancy is to blame for DUI's. Its amazing, i used to be one you people, but I never found myself blaming car dependancy on a DUI.
Huh, did you read this one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown
It's hard to argue (unless arguing is the only reason you're here) with this logic. Say for arguments that 5% of all drivers are drunk. If there's a city of 100,000 where 50% of adults don't drive (and 50% do), then that's 2500 drunk drivers total.
Look at the same ratio for an area of the same size where 100% of adults drive, and that number is 5,000.
Now if you want to argue that more people drink in the suburbs or cities (only two people are currently arguing that point, and it's pretty onerous), that's a different issue. Without stats all we can do is make educated guesses like above.
BUT THE ISSUE OF BLAME REMAINS ON THE INDIVIDUAL. I put that in bold for our reading-challenged posters.
I even bolded it the first time because I thought it might get your attention and you would read it. But I guess not, so we continue with the "you people" this and that talk.
No one saying that the driver isn't at fault. I heard this idea (while in a car) from someone who had experience with both universities. He said he believes there is more drunk driving at the state university here rather than the school we both went to for undergraduate both the students here (as well as parties / nightlife) are further apart compared to the other university which was denser and more compact. The person who said this was definitely not anti-car, and he doesn't live in an "urban walkable" area at all. Neither he say that the DUIs here are not the fault of the driver / drinker.
If you believe its the driver's fault, the arguement should stop there. Its a lack of responsibility on the part of the driver. There are multiple options for people who have to rely on a car if they go out drinking. You can call a cab, call a friend, take a train, take a bus, or my favorite, not get drunk. If you fail to use one of these options that means you are not responsible. The fact that you need to rely on a car is is no excuse.
I even bolded it the first time because I thought it might get your attention and you would read it. But I guess not, so we continue with the "you people" this and that talk.
The fact that this is even a discussion is pathetic. There shouldn't be linking of anything other than personal responsibility when it comes to DUI's. This OP is just anti-car and wants to link DUI's to car dependancy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
