| Member |
 Discussion Topic  |
|
Daddio
 Senior Member
470 Posts
[Mentor]
Calera, AL
USA
Suzuki
Bandit 1250
|
 Posted - 09/03/2008 : 8:40 PM
|
In light of a very active thread on motorcycle rallies, I ask this question. Why do bars have parking lots? I have also seen state run liquor stores that have drive up windows in Tennessee and Florida! We seem to send a very mixed message about alcohol consumption in our modern societies. We brag about it, we joke about it and we also condemn it. By all rights, the only bars left should be walk to neighborhood joints mainly in, well, neighborhoods.
If I were a LEO, and committed to reducing DUI incidents, I probably would park my car in some popular watering hole’s parking lot and just start talking to folks as they left the establishment. Anyone would have the opportunity to get a BAT to check if they were ok. I could stop the obviously impaired, on the spot. No one needs to get out on the road while impaired. How long do you think any one bar could do business under those conditions – LEO in the parking lot? The current system, waiting until someone gets in their car and snaring them at random is a farce.
There are of course many levels and types of impairment. For you cigarette smokers out there (I am nicotine free since Lent of 2000). You do realize the reason you enjoy smoking is because it is a “mind altering drug”? For the addicted it causes mini bouts of withdrawal to the point all you think of is, “How do I get my next fix?” No BS – FACT. Motorcycling may distract that urge for a while, but you will hear the siren call. If you don’t, you are not addicted! Stop – it is killing you!
I drive a lot of 50 – 100 mile trips for my job. Sometimes I am overcome by the “sleepies”. I dislike when that happens. I do make my way to the nearest parking lot and take a 15 – 45 minute nap. Shhhh – don’t tell my boss – I add that to my travel time.
Cell phones – So much has been said. The average cell conversation should be no more distracting than talking to a passenger in your car. You folks with families, kids in the car are a huge distraction/impairment (I am Daddio). Many states are starting to give graduated licenses. If you have a certain amount of experience, you may have this many passengers in your car. Most restrictions do not apply to family members. I do use my cell while driving. This morning, a very important customer of my company called. I answered. He tried to give me info that needed to be written down. I told him I was about a minute from a parking spot to take his information. He waited for me to park. I have blown many an exit because of in car or on cell distraction. Oh well – I turn around at the next exit. I do believe in responsible cell phone use. Impairment - none the less. By the way, how many of you big rig owners have communication systems?
Back to chemical impairment. I have not been to a bar in so long I cannot remember when (stage of life). I do, on occasion, go to Your Favorite Neighborhood Generic Casual Dining establishment. If I am having dinner, I may have a tall Sam Adams. I am going to be there for about an hour. I enjoy that beer, with dinner! While I certainly am not promoting drinking and driving/riding, I do believe in responsibly enjoying a drink. I respect those that make the decision to drink zero alcohol.
While on vacation recently in the UK, there were news reports about the number of Pubs going out of business. There was also discussion in the news – the UK may go Zero tolerance for alcohol consumption and driving.
I have seen responses that suggest zero tolerance for drinking, no, none at all. I have seen responses that say – on my bike – I stay away. What about your cage, Do you enjoy a beer with dinner? I am trying to get an intelligent discussion about impairment. At some point – most of us have driven/ridden impaired, by something. Obviously, most have different ideas about what impaired is
|
|
|
KaosDad
Junior Member
65 Posts
Broadlands, VA
USA
Honda
Magna
|
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 8:33 AM
|
Ever been to Louisiana? Try drive thru daquiri bars. Yes, frozen alcohol available in the demure 8oz cup or the 1/2 gallon tub!
Many moons ago I was "stationed" by my company at Stennis Space Port and the closest places for supplies & amusement were in La. We were baffeled as to why the fast food drive thrus gave you a hand full of staws for 3 drinks. It's because the drive thru daquiri bars didn't give out staws to get around the whole "drink & drive" thing.
Imagine our shock when we went past one such place and there were three LEOs in line.
Granted this was back in the early '90s and things may have changed, but Mixed Messages? Just a touch. |
 |
|
|
VodkaAndPickles
Advanced Member
589 Posts
Langhorne, PA
USA
Suzuki
Intruder 1500 LC
|
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 8:54 AM
|
| By that logic, why have bars at all? Or if you are going to have them, they could only be in cities where they can be reached without a car? |
|
|
|
bkikkert
Advanced Member
817 Posts
[Mentor]
Cornwall, Ontario
Canada
Harley-Davidson
Ultra Classic '08
|
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 6:43 PM
|
The parking lots are there so that the designated drivers can take the drinkers to the bar or they serve as a pick-up and drop-off point for taxis.
In this country a police officer cannot park in a bar parking lot because it would be thrown out of court for entrapment. |
|
|
Niebor
Ex-Member
|
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 7:32 PM
|
If the proprietor of an establishment asks LEO to leave the parking lot, and they have not witnessed a crime, they have little choice but to comply. Bars would likely ask LEO to leave.
Convenience stores on the other hand tend to encourage LEO to frequent their parking lots. Free coffee usually earns a couple extra stops. 
It wouldn't be entrapment in any event. Harassment perhaps, not entrapment. The same holds true for parking half a block away and stopping customers as they leave. |
|
|
|
gdickelman
Moderator
1191 Posts
[Mentor]
Annandale, VA
USA
Moto Guzzi
California Vintage
|
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 10:33 PM
|
Daddio -
Thanks for your thoughtful concerns and perspectives. I certainly see your point about the bar parking lots; I have similarly wondered why drive-up ATMs have instructions in braille. 
There have been a number of studies on both alcohol and cell phone usage while driving. Since you mentioned both cell phones and alcohol, let me make a few comments. Note that this information was brought to my attention by one of my graduate students this past summer who was studying innovations in auto displays (e.g., heads-up displays) as a means to decrease driving distraction consequences.
A starling find is the following:
"University of Utah psychologists have published a study showing that motorists who talk on handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers.
"We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit” of 0.08 percent, which is the minimum level that defines illegal drunken driving in most U.S. states, says study co-author Frank Drews...." Ref: http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
What does this mean? It is a correlation between the effects of alcohol and talking on a cell phone with respect to reaction time delays. The Southeast Region American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association defines a distraction as, “any activity, risk factor or danger that affects vehicle path of travel or driver’s line of sight.” Things that increase time to brake, for example, can affect both vehicle path of travel and line-of-sight, hence are distractions. Even if their eyes are on the road it has been shown that drivers at .08% blood-alcohol level AND drivers who are talking on hands-free cell phones brake later than a fully focused driver by 9 - 15% (about the same amount in this interval in both cases).
In the former case the delay is caused by a reduction in cognitive ability because of the depressive characteristics of alcohol; in the latter case, the secondary cognitive activity around carrying on the cell phone conversation degrades reactions in the primary activity (driving).
I think that the above gives all drivers good advice regarding how to be responsible and stay safe: Don't drink and drive; reduce all distractions while driving, especially cell phone usage, conversations with passengers or yelling at the kids in the back seat  . The data of the studies, if conducted responsibly, do not lie; responsibilities start with the individual, extend to their friends (e.g., take the keys away) and the establishment owners. And then, of course, is law enforcement....
Thanks for a thought-provoking and heartfelt post!
|
|
|
|
gymnast
Moderator
2807 Posts
[Mentor]
Meridian, Idaho
USA
Harley-Davidson
Sportster Sport
|
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 10:54 PM
|
| Ever wonder why state liquor commissions license bars or roadhouses that are located so far out in the boonies that they can only be accessed by vehicle operators, their passengers or hitch-hikers? |
|
|
|
Misty Trane
Junior Member
88 Posts
nyc, ny
USA
Indian
|
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 4:43 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gdickelman
"We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit” of 0.08 percent
That is fascinating in so many ways. The first thought that comes to mind because of this is are drivers driving at .08 actually impaired? They may have slower reaction times in a test, etc., but is their impairment significant enough to cause accidents? (I'll bet that study hasn't been done). You don't see crashes all over caused by cell phone use, even though a glance around will tell you that maybe one in three drivers is talking on a phone. We're conditioned to think that if one out of three drivers was .08 we'd have a city-wide traffic jam of crashes. But if anything, the legal limit will be legislated even lower, it's an outstanding political tool, and the next study will find that listening to the radio is as bad as driving "drunk." Or not listening to the radio...
|
|
|
|
scottrnelson
Advanced Member
5258 Posts
[Mentor]
Pleasanton, CA
USA
KTM
990 Adv, ST2, XR650L
|
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 7:07 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Misty Trane
The first thought that comes to mind because of this is are drivers driving at .08 actually impaired? They may have slower reaction times in a test, etc., but is their impairment significant enough to cause accidents? (I'll bet that study hasn't been done).
Car and Driver magazine has done several tests in the past on a test track where they had a few volunteers drink and run through a set of driving tests. They measured their alcohol level as they had more drinks and checked how well they were able to perform a few simple driving maneuvers. Their conclusion was that most of the drivers became dangerous before even getting to .08 BAC.
They did one test using Marijuana too, quite a few years ago. They concluded that the driving skills didn't seem to diminish much, but the problem was that the drivers no longer cared if they ran over someone or not.  |
|
|
|
gdickelman
Moderator
1191 Posts
[Mentor]
Annandale, VA
USA
Moto Guzzi
California Vintage
|
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 7:53 AM
|
quote:
That is fascinating in so many ways. The first thought that comes to mind because of this is are drivers driving at .08 actually impaired? They may have slower reaction times in a test, etc., but is their impairment significant enough to cause accidents?
Yes. And that is the point. (See Scott's post.). Impairment is defined very clearly in the article, and it fosters accidents. |
|
|
|
gymnast
Moderator
2807 Posts
[Mentor]
Meridian, Idaho
USA
Harley-Davidson
Sportster Sport
|
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 9:09 AM
|
| Studies done about 40 years ago when the Breathalyzer was first coming into effect in terms of a DUI enforcement and adjudication tool indicated at that time that measurable degradation of a drivers decision making and performance abilities began at a level of .02 BAC. The first BAC laws used .10 or 5 times that level as a standard of presumed intoxication. The average BAC level for non-crash involved drivers arrested for DUI at that time was about .18BAC and today, as then, the standard for conviction of DUI is intoxication or impairment to such an extent as to prevent the operator from safely operating the vehicle. Crashing in combination with the consumption of alcohol is considered to be strong evidence (but not a prima facia case) in support of the contention that the driver was likely to be DUI. DUI convictions with BACs less than .08 have been obtained. A BAC of less than .08 should never be construed as an indication of "legal sobriety". |
|
|
|
VodkaAndPickles
Advanced Member
589 Posts
Langhorne, PA
USA
Suzuki
Intruder 1500 LC
|
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 1:43 PM
|
Being stupid, I once drove after having 2 drinks. Now, 2 drinks is really not a lot for me, and I didn't feel impaired as I was going to the car at all. In any case, my BAC was certainly way less than .08. However, once I started driving, (it was night, in an urban area, with lots of malls and flashing neon signs) I began to feel the effect of the drinks. I wasn't drunk or seriously impaired, but it was enough to raise my chances of becoming disoriented or making a wrong decision. All the lights and flashing signs made it worse.
I am no more susceptible to alcohol than the average person, but I will be the first to say that even 2 drinks that night were enough to increase the risk of having an accident. Not by much, but it was enough.
That night, I learned not to drive after drinking, ever. |
|
|
|
Misty Trane
Junior Member
88 Posts
nyc, ny
USA
Indian
|
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 3:33 PM
|
Scott - I know the tests will show impairment. The question is does that level of impairment cause accidents in the real world? In the old glory days of drunk driving ;) which some of us remember, you had to be prepared for somebody roaring over the hill at you square in your lane. That's not .08. Also, I can't imagine pot causing the effect you describe, but some of the legal antidepressants used to stop smoking can produce that effect, from stories I've heard.
Bottom line:
Will there ever be license suspension for a year for 2nd offense cell phone driving? I can't picture it. The reason for that has to be that it's not really that much of a problem.
|
Edited by - Misty Trane on 09/18/2008 3:49 PM |
|
|
|
gymnast
Moderator
2807 Posts
[Mentor]
Meridian, Idaho
USA
Harley-Davidson
Sportster Sport
|
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 3:59 PM
|
[Moderator's note: I had intended to respond to gymnast's original post with what you see below, but inadvertently edited it. Apologies....]
Regarding marijuana and driving, the following is a journal article from 1996:
http://www.drugabuse.gov/Nida_Notes...rijuana.html
" 'Driving and marijuana do not mix; that's the bottom line,' said Dr. Stephen J. Heishman, a research psychologist in the Clinical Pharmacology Branch of NIDA's Division of Intramural Research. Figures from previous studies of automobile accident victims show that from 6 to 12 percent of nonfatally injured drivers and 4 to 16 percent of fatally injured drivers had tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in their bloodstream, Dr. Heishman said. One study showed that 32 percent of drivers in a shock trauma unit in Baltimore had marijuana in their bloodstream, he noted. However, in most of these studies, the majority of subjects who tested positive for THC also tested positive for alcohol, making it difficult to single out THC's effect on driving."
|
Edited by - gdickelman on 09/18/2008 9:33 PM |
|
|
|
Misty Trane
Junior Member
88 Posts
nyc, ny
USA
Indian
|
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 8:17 PM
|
Gymnast, a similar percent as had THC in their blood probably had nicotine in their blood, or caffiene, or even nothing ;)
The cliche of a pot smoking driver is someone doing everything fine... except they're going 15 mph....
The interesting thing here is .08 is similar to cell phone use level of impairment. What this says is, that to be rational, we either need to take away a license for a year for talking on the phone, or else raise the legal limit. Fascinating.
|
|
|
|
gdickelman
Moderator
1191 Posts
[Mentor]
Annandale, VA
USA
Moto Guzzi
California Vintage
|
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 9:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Misty Trane
The interesting thing here is .08 is similar to cell phone use level of impairment. What this says is, that to be rational, we either need to take away a license for a year for talking on the phone, or else raise the legal limit. Fascinating.
The study says nothing of the sort. It is saying that reaction time degrades similarly when the driver is at a 0.08 alcohol level as when distracted by a conversation. The measurement is of distraction, not impairment. |
|
|
|
gymnast
Moderator
2807 Posts
[Mentor]
Meridian, Idaho
USA
Harley-Davidson
Sportster Sport
|
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 10:03 PM
|
Misty Trane, I did not post the comment you are responding to. There was some kind of technical glitch whereby Gary's post in response to mine carries my name. However, I will give it a shot.
First of all, the "cliche" of "the pot smoking driver" is not exactly a "cliche" and in addition to "pot" many have additional mood or performance altering substances in their body. THC is fat soluble and may be found in tissue samples for up to six months after (heavy) exposure.
Research was done in Illinois in the early 80s in an attempt to determine a quantitative method of determining THC impairment. I had several discussions with the principal researcher at the time however I took a position overseas and never did see how his study turned out.
I am sure that you know that ethanol (booze) is a depressant drug and is capable of depressing the central nervous system to the point of death Usually at about .38 to.45 BAC. THC on the other hand is a psychotropic drug and I am not aware that a lethal dose has ever been established or even if one exists. It can act as a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogen. One of it's primary effects is on perception. Altered perception of time, space, or distance seem to be some of the effects of the drug as well a mood alteration.
I am not aware of any studies that indicate that the consumption of either alcohol or THC improves driver performance however there are ample studies that indicate significant degradation of performance.
Increases in task loadings, such as talking on a cell phone, indicate a decreased ability to efficiently operate a vehicle. Having a person operate a vehicle while counting backwards from a hundred causes decreased performance and additional loadings such as adding a letter of the alphabet, in order, after every third number causes severe performance degradation.
I am not sure what the penalty for involvement in an crash while speaking on a cell phone should be. I would suggest that if the possibility of of cell phone use was a factor in a crash, the lawyer for the plaintiff should request the cell phone time of use records of the defendant. |
Edited by - gymnast on 09/19/2008 12:51 AM |
|
|
|
Misty Trane
Junior Member
88 Posts
nyc, ny
USA
Indian
|
Posted - 09/19/2008 : 12:23 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gdickelman
quote:
Originally posted by Misty Trane
The interesting thing here is .08 is similar to cell phone use level of impairment. What this says is, that to be rational, we either need to take away a license for a year for talking on the phone, or else raise the legal limit. Fascinating.
The study says nothing of the sort. It is saying that reaction time degrades similarly when the driver is at a 0.08 alcohol level as when distracted by a conversation. The measurement is of distraction, not impairment.
I've been assuming that the study said that the impairment was equal, be that impairment a distraction, in the case of the phone, or one of perception and control in the case of alcohol. If that isn't what the study says, then what does it say and what was the point of the study?
|
|
|
|
Misty Trane
Junior Member
88 Posts
nyc, ny
USA
Indian
|
Posted - 09/19/2008 : 12:33 AM
|
I just thought of a funny way to interpret this statistic, almost logical, maybe points out potential dangers of statistics even. Don't worry, I'm not stating this seriously.
If 12% of drivers in accidents were found to be over .08 bac, that means the overwhelming majority had not been drinking. Maybe they should have been.
;)
|
|
|
|
bachman1961
Advanced Member
1408 Posts
[Mentor]
colorado springs, co
USA
Honda
CB750 NightHawk
|
Posted - 09/19/2008 : 2:06 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Daddio
If I were a LEO, and committed to reducing DUI incidents, I probably would park my car in some popular watering hole’s parking lot and just start talking to folks as they left the establishment. Anyone would have the opportunity to get a BAT to check if they were ok. I could stop the obviously impaired, on the spot. No one needs to get out on the road while impaired. How long do you think any one bar could do business under those conditions – LEO in the parking lot? The current system, waiting until someone gets in their car and snaring them at random is a farce.
I recall hearing about Police patrolling bars and 'painting' tires as a way to code how long a vehicle was in a bar parking lot assuming to indicate how imaired one might be when they left the establishment. I never seen this occur but it makes sense from that perspective. This was in Michigan around the late 1970's to early-mid 1980's.
If it caused drivers to come out and check their tires, maybe they had the sense to walk home.... nah, probably not.
~brian |
|
|
|
Misty Trane
Junior Member
88 Posts
nyc, ny
USA
Indian
|
Posted - 09/19/2008 : 4:28 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bachman1961
[br This was in Michigan around the late 1970's to early-mid 1980's.
In some parts of the country, late 70s was still in the time frame where they would only tell you to go home, and follow you to make sure you got there ok.
quote:
Originally posted by Daddio
The current system, waiting until someone gets in their car and snaring them at random is a farce.
Could be the idea is to prevent it in the first place, using stiff enough penalties combined with just some possibilty of getting caught, to create fear of doing it.
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic |
|
|
|
|
Most Recent Posts
|
Activity History
|
Safety Tips
Why do bars have parking lots?