Thread: Milwaukee Ranked Drunkest City (In USA)

Strong drinking culture irrespective of how accurate or inaccurate the statistical study might have been.

However, I like Miwaukee's fairly lenient policing of drivers that are under a few (drinks). This ain't Arizona although some people want to make it into that and crush the balls of drinkers behind the steering wheel.

Not saying one should be smashed (drunk) and driving. But my argument is some people take this cracking down (ball busting) too far. Or so it seems to me [shrug].

Milwaukee Ranked America's Drunkest City - Video - WISN Milwaukee

Milwaukee Ranked America's Drunkest City

Sheriff David Clarke Wants To Change Drunken Driving Behavior

Americans can find their city's ranking here: 40 Drunkest Cities, From Vegas to Milwaukee - The Daily Beast

Anyone caught drunk (or smashed on drugs) behind the wheel of an automobile should have his or her driver's license suspended for three months. If they complain about needing their license to drive to work, they ought to be given a map of a bus line (or train line) in their area.

Second offense should require jail time. Third a lot more jail time. Put their dumb asses behind bars before they injure or kill some innocent child or person.


Oops, almost forgot. The people who don't drive smashed but who believe the sentences may be a bit too severe, well, they should be given a cot and locked up in the same cell near the drunk, who now cannot injure anyone. One happy family.

Carefully controlled research has shown over and over that even a very small amount of alcohol in a person's blood will slow reflexes, alter ability to judge distance and speed, and impair overall driving ability. The person who is not legally drunk but who has been drinking can get into a situation that calls for instant and correct reaction, and fail to meet the challenge. To say 'go easy on the drinking driver' is to say that little or no value should be placed on human life or human suffering.

NHTSA: People: Injury Prevention: Alcohol-Impaired Driving
Drink-driving research supports campaign for lower alcohol limit - Science, News - The Independent
Drunk Driving Research & Statistics
Drunk Driving - Information About Drunk Driving
Drinking & Driving

When I was a teenager, I worked at the largest brewery in New York. Firsthand, I saw the effects of alcohol on grown men. On so many occasions, workers who abused alcohol (the stuff was free--drink till you dropped) never made it home. I would go to work the next morning to find them sprawled out in the locker room, their pants wet with piss. Someone would have to wake them so they could begin their shift. Pitiful sight.

It's one thing when a person abuses himself, but when his self-abuse endangers the life of another, the rules of the game must change too. Pitiful now becomes dangerous, and the law ought to be enforced to the max to keep the person from harming others.

I don't know, garza, I suspect people's reactions are slowed by driving with a cold, flu, or throbbing headache or any sort of ailment. Let's not forget being sleepy. Personally, I suspect tired drivers kill more people and are involved in more accidents annually then the person that has drunk 3 or 4 beers and gotten behind the wheel of car.

Of course... being smashed is something different. I have to be careful waiting on bus stops and hate it actually. There have been numerous vehicles speeding that have wiped out bus shelters. I have less a problem with drinking specifically than with the culture of people in cars viewing it their God given right to come first before all pedestrians - and $%^& die if you're in their way. I remember leaving out the house one day to hop the bus to find a car laying on its side and an unmarked investigating the scene.

The city promotes tail gating parties too. Oh the irony. And every cop and person knows everyone getting in those vehicles have been drinking.

I don't know, garza, I suspect people's reactions are slowed by driving with a cold, flu, or throbbing headache or any sort of ailment. Let's not forget being sleepy. Personally, I suspect tired drivers kill more people and are involved in more accidents annually then the person that has drunk 3 or 4 beers and gotten behind the wheel of car.

Reading this triggered a vague memory, I did a little thinking and with the wonders of Wikipedia I found this: Selby rail crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are many things that slow down our reactions as a driver, though my main bug bear is people using phones whilst driving. So far as drinking and driving is concerned I believe, certainly in the UK, the day will come when there is a zero alcohol limit imposed if you wish to drive, ie. you either drink or you drive, you don't do both. Zero tolerance. And it when it happens it won't be a day to soon. Hmmmph!!!

Three or four beers will make you dangerous in traffic.

A sudden move by another driver, a blowout at freeway speeds on a congested road, any number of unexpected events can suddenly test reflexes and judgment. A second or two delay in reaction time can spell the difference between life and death.

And if you don't believe three or four beers can make a difference in your reflexes, it's easy enough to test right at home with this: http://www.google.com/url?url=http:/...KxOT3nrVMaeVmg

Do one of the exercises, drink a beer, wait ten minutes, do the exercise again. Repeat the process until you have drunk four beers in about the time you normally would drink that much in a bar. Keep a record of you score the whole way. Compare your reaction time at the start with your reaction time an hour after you started drinking.

Denial is common. So are the deaths caused by people who have been drinking but are not drunk. The effect of very small amounts of alcohol has been demonstrated over and over again, yet that denial still exists, so people still die. One of those sites I referred to above says four out of ten fatalities on US roads are alcohol related.

What I'm saying is not my opinion. It's been demonstrated repeatedly but it's one of those 'don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up' situations
.

They should hold New Year's Eve parties in prisons. In the event a person becomes too smashed to drive, he/she could be tossed into a cell and released in the morn when sober. Big convenience for all.

Fast drivers.
Tired drivers.
Drunk drivers.
Druggie drivers.
Cell phone drivers.
Irate drivers.
Medicated drivers.
Overaged drivers.
Underaged drivers.
Handicapped drivers.
Unlicensed drivers.
Slow drivers.

Solution: ban automobiles.

Originally Posted by Bilston Blue

Reading this triggered a vague memory, I did a little thinking and with the wonders of Wikipedia I found this: Selby rail crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are many things that slow down our reactions as a driver, though my main bug bear is people using phones whilst driving. So far as drinking and driving is concerned I believe, certainly in the UK, the day will come when there is a zero alcohol limit imposed if you wish to drive, ie. you either drink or you drive, you don't do both. Zero tolerance. And it when it happens it won't be a day to soon. Hmmmph!!!

Wow! that was one hell of a crash.

But I check this in the story:

Hart escaped the collision unscathed. He claimed that his car had suffered a mechanical fault, or had collided with an object on the road. However, an investigation, including reconstruction of the Land Rover to demonstrate that it was not mechanically defective, concluded that Hart had been driving in a sleep-deprived condition, and had not applied the brakes as it went down the embankment. It later transpired that Hart had stayed up the previous night talking on the telephone to a woman he had met via an Internet dating agency.[3]

If she had the most perfect breasts or butt on earth should we blame him?

Originally Posted by garza

Three or four beers will make you dangerous in traffic.

A sudden move by another driver, a blowout at freeway speeds on a congested road, any number of unexpected events can suddenly test reflexes and judgment. A second or two delay in reaction time can spell the difference between life and death.

And if you don't believe three or four beers can make a difference in your reflexes, it's easy enough to test right at home with this: http://www.google.com/url?url=http:/...KxOT3nrVMaeVmg

Do one of the exercises, drink a beer, wait ten minutes, do the exercise again. Repeat the process until you have drunk four beers in about the time you normally would drink that much in a bar. Keep a record of you score the whole way. Compare your reaction time at the start with your reaction time an hour after you started drinking.

Denial is common. So are the deaths caused by people who have been drinking but are not drunk. The effect of very small amounts of alcohol has been demonstrated over and over again, yet that denial still exists, so people still die. One of those sites I referred to above says four out of ten fatalities on US roads are alcohol related.

What I'm saying is not my opinion. It's been demonstrated repeatedly but it's one of those 'don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up' situations
.

LOL. I like you, garza, if nothing else one can't just claim you only listen to hearsay and parrot others views.

Listen... I don't deny vehicles can become lethal weapons. I don't deny that. I think my problem is more the "fear factor" that arouses lynch mob mentality. Interesting I live around people that consume alcohol and carry or put up firearms. Yet... it's only those with one beer that become the boogyman. I'd be interested to see if firearms or vehicles kill more people annually in Milwaukee. So far as I know only people kill people not guns - that's in an environment with a mixture of alcohol, guns, and vehicles.

There is the theory of arresting someone for breaking specific laws other than arresting them under the assumption "possibly" they might kill someone. Why can't we arrest every American with a firearm? After all the statistics I'm sure allude to the irresponsibility of all ow citizenry to hold firearms.

My feeling is if a person is driving erratic then let the cops pull them over. If the cat is driving and had 2 beers but was not at fault when the "sober" person ran a red light and crashed into two vehicles... then leave the cat alone that had 2 beers. Currently you can rape, rob, and murder 16 people while driving 100 mph but if you crash into a cat that had been sipping on a single can of beer and obeying every law of the road, the guy sipping beer will be found at fault the other guy let go on mere technicality.

I say this as someone surrounded around those that mix alcohol, guns, and cars. I'm alive. Amazing.

I also don't care if people get drunk and fly airplanes into buildings.

I'm not condoning driving while drunk, but the statistics can be influenced by the person compiling the data. For example, it may be as high as 49% when you look at the cause of the fatality, but the average is 24% of all accidents are caused by alcohol.

That means that the other 76% of accidents are caused by people who are just too stupid to be driving, using cell phones, texting, reading, putting on makeup and doing other things that distract them. There is a test, but it is merely memorization. Some people may be amazing at memorizing things but still be a total idiot. Who is more guilty of causing a death while driving? The drunk or the texting idiot, the person reading, putting on makeup or dialing a phone number? Dead is dead.

Delusional is the right word. People have a few drinks and think they're fine to drive. And they believe it all the more because they've probably driven after a number of drinks time and time again and managed without any trouble to get home without incident.

I don't have any stats to back this up, but as bad as that is, I'm betting these aren't the drivers who cause most of the worst accidents and fatalities. When you read about drunk driving accidents, most of the time the blood alcohol level is very high, sometimes at or approaching twice the legal limit. So often, it's not even a situation where there's a blowout or something that requires quick reflexes. It's wrong-way driving, drifting into the other lane, running red lights etc. Always amazes me too, how often these people are the ones who survive the accidents.

Originally Posted by Ditch

I'm not condoning driving while drunk, but the statistics can be influenced by the person compiling the data. For example, it may be as high as 49% when you look at the cause of the fatality, but the average is 24% of all accidents are caused by alcohol.

That means that the other 76% of accidents are caused by people who are just too stupid to be driving, using cell phones, texting, reading, putting on makeup and doing other things that distract them. There is a test, but it is merely memorization. Some people may be amazing at memorizing things but still be a total idiot. Who is more guilty of causing a death while driving? The drunk or the texting idiot, the person reading, putting on makeup or dialing a phone number? Dead is dead.

I remember reading in the news about some female celebrity that killed some person in an auto accident in California. The celebrity was responsible for the accident because she was distracted while driving. I can't remember if she was operating an SUV or not. Anyways, she was let go and didn't have to serve any jail time. The reason? Unless you're drunk auto crashes magically turn into "tragedies."

When I was a child - born in the early 70's but a child of the 80's essentially - no one wore seat belts, all of us kids played on metal slides and playgrounds of wood chips or concrete, people drove drunk too back then I'm sure. People died mind you but they were "tragedies." Theoretically, if you go by the impression from the media, my entire generation should have died before adulthood.

Now, I'm not suggesting campaigning against drunk driving - thank you political lobbyist MADD - isn't a worthwhile cause. However, I've been alive long enough to realize two things. One, there is a reason companies pump so much money into commercial advertisements, and it's not because they think no human can be brainwashed or influenced. Two, after one crusade ends we must find another crusade.

So, in the spirit of ending all suffering on human earth through crusades and legislation, let me be the first to suggest go after the way vehicles are produced. I suck at physics, I greatly suck at it, but if I recall correctly speed is a vector. A rock or car with zero speed still has potential energy. It's not the potential energy necessarily that kills people through traumatic injuries. Now, distinguishing between "needs" and "wants" is there a need for people to travel at the speed of 30 mph? What about 100 mph? Forensic engineers can gauge speed from the destruction present at the Twin Towers in New York or any auto accident on the face of the planet. And forensic engineers now human reaction is only so fast - not to mention humans have a limited field of vision - so, my young nephew that ran out in front of a moving car might not have ended up with a broken leg had the car actually been traveling at 3 mph instead of the legal speed limit which is much higher.

Most human history survived just fine without automobiles. In fact in U.S. history George Washington - on of America's Found Fathers - traveled no faster than Caesar of Rome. Not sure if they arrested people for riding horseback while drunk? So, we can decrease human tragedy, fatalities, if we get rid of automobiles entirely and limit people to mules and bicycles to ride. LOL. And think of the positive impact on the environment.

Yeah... I think my fellow citizens value convenience more than "human life," so, I won't be holding my breath on that one.

Maybe the next crusade can be a campaign to end the manufacturing - or at least sale - of firearms. I just read that Mexico's homicides are fueled by U.S. made weaponry: pistols, assault rifles etc. Why Americans don't care amount Mexican lives? LOL.

Or maybe... unless someone is driving crazy, shooting up in the air, we can leave them alone. No? It's the "potential" for fatality we care about? Well... I don't know why they make cars capable of traveling at 70 mph then? LMAO.



This message is brought to you by a survivor of the 1970's and 80's who only began wearing seat belts when the media and government said you're an evil a****** who will die otherwise. (quite is kept, I still don't wear a seat belt all the time)

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

I remember reading in the news about some female celebrity that killed some person in an auto accident in California. The celebrity was responsible for the accident because she was distracted while driving. I can't remember if she was operating an SUV or not. Anyways, she was let go and didn't have to serve any jail time. The reason? Unless you're drunk auto crashes magically turn into "tragedies."

I think from time-to-time, most of us are distracted when we drive. When my daughter was an infant, she was fussing in the back seat, I looked back at her for a split second and rear-ended the lady in front of me. It was more than a fender bender, but it could have been worse. I've changed a CD, screwed with my iPod, looked at a billboard, fiddled with my coffee etc. GPS is a distraction too. I don't always have my hands at ten and two with my eyes glued to the road. And all it takes is a split second.

I know around here, it's by the grace of God that you can get from point A to point B without having an accident. And really, I think most people operate under the delusion that they are always safe or better than average drivers. Luck has a lot to do with it.

Seatbelts save lives. That is a fact.

Forcing someone to wear one is another story.