Easy fix....don't drink then get behind the wheel or on you bike for that matter...
Court lets Drunken Driver write off Crash Damage
- Thread starter skydivr
- Start date
Easy fix....don't drink then get behind the wheel or on you bike for that matter...
afterhours
Registered
i have not had a drink in 12 years.....
.08 BAC is one of those things that lets society pretend it cares about drunk driving...it gives the impression we are doing something and allows us to quell our conscience, because we know we don't really care.
if we did, bars and restaraunts would not have parking lots, we would have a zero tollerance policy...but we don't we have .08 BAC.
why? not safety.....to generate revenue and protect the insurance industry.
SKnight
Registered
So are speed limits, following distances, passing zones, etc.
Fact is, he broke the law then passed the bill on to someone else.
afterhours
Registered
speed limits are not arbitrary. there is research done. someone actually goes to a road, evaluates it, evaluates the conditions, the area(residential v. industrial) and assignes a safe speed limit.
they are not arbitrary...
fact is...the only fact is...he was .09, which over the legal limit. when the insurance company decided he was "willfully negligent" that was an opinion. that was a paper pusher seeing how he could save his company $50k.
there was no trial, the IRS did not have a hearing....another paper pusher decided that he should have to pay.
there was no hearing, no court proceeding....i would bet nobody even looked at the accident site.
From the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends that all states and District of Columbia establish .08 BAC as the legal limit per se for drivers aged 21 and older for the following reasons:
(1) Virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at .08 BAC. Laboratory and test track research shows that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drinkers, are impaired at .08 with regard to critical driving tasks. There are significant decrements in performance in areas such as braking, steering, lane changing, judgment and divided attention at .08 BAC. Studies report that performance decrements in some of these tasks are as high as 60%-70% at .08 BAC.
(2) The risk of being involved in a crash increases substantially by. 08 BAC. The risk of being in a crash gradually increases at each BAC level, but rises very rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 BAC compared to drivers with no alcohol in their blood systems. Research by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that the relative risk of being killed in a single vehicle crash for drivers at BACs between .05 and .09 is 11 times that of drivers at .00 BAC (no alcohol).
(3) Lowering the per se limit is a proven effective countermeasure which will reduce alcohol-related traffic fatalities. There is evidence from California that significant reductions in alcohol-related fatalities occurred in 1990 (a 12% reduction), the year .08 and an administrative license revocation law went into effect. A study by Boston University compared five states that lowered their illegal limit from .10 to .09 with five states that did not do so. They found a 16% reduction in the proportion of fatal crashes involving fatally injured drivers whose BACS were .08 or higher in the five .08 states. That same study showed an 18% reduction in the proportion of fatal crashes involving fatally injured drivers at very high BACs (.15 or higher) in those .08 states.
A 1995 NHTSA study found significant decreases in four states that adopted .08 on nine measures of alcohol-related fatalities. Decreases in alcohol-related fatalities ranged from 4% to 40% in those states analyzed.
(4) .08 is a reasonable level to set the limit. A .08 BAC is not typically reached with a couple of beers after work or a glass or two of wine with dinner. The average 170 pound male would have to consume more than four 12 oz. cans of beer within 1 hour on an empty stomach to reach .08 BAC, The average 137 pound female would need at least three cans of beer in one hour on an empty stomach to reach that level. That female driver would need 4 equivalent drinks over a 2-hour period to get above .08 BAC, and the male would need 5 equivalent drinks.
(5) The public supports levels below .10 BAC. NHTSA surveys show that most people would not drive after consuming 2 or 3 drinks in an hour and believe the limit should be no higher than that. Recent polls show that 2 out of every 3 Americans favor lowering the limit to .08 when they are aware of how much alcohol it takes to reach that level,
(6) Most other industrialized nations have set BAC limits at. 08 or lower and have had these laws in place for many years. For example. Canada and Great Britain set their limits at .08--as do Austria and Switzerland. All States in Australia now have a .05 limit. France and Germany recently lowered their limit to .05, while Sweden's illegal limit is .02 BAC.
SKnight
Registered
And zero research went into the .08 number they pulled out of their tails.
Fact is, he was legally over the limit. After leaving the party, after being at home long enough to decide to leave, after the time it took for an officer to not only get to him but to measure him, still .09.
Speed limits are very subjective to the person. I can at times safely (Maintain my lane staying within my abilities.) greatly exceed the posted limit in turns. You can make any law defined by a number subjective by the situation. I get caught riding over the posted limit a cop isn't going to take my reasoning that I can handle the speed any more then if I blow .08 or higher I'm standing fine thus I'm not drunk.
Research has been done and an average safe limit has been placed on human alcohol consupmtion. That number happens to be .08, just like a posted limit of 35 MPH.
S-R Racing
Registered
Hey, can I go back 19 years, and would the Charger qualify as a collector car? Also would .24 get me in a better tax bracket? I think I've missed something 
J'Man
Registered
Let me first say that I absolutely believe people should not drink and drive, however in this case I think the problem here is the Insurance company should have paid.
Regardless of whether he was negligent or not, if he had an active policy and was making his payments the company should have paid out for the damages. They can and will surcharge him by raising his rates and/or cancelling some or all of his coverages, however if he was insured they should have paid.
I say this, because I work for an insurance company and if you looked at it from just a negligence point of view we would pay very few claims. You're negligent when you run the stop light and hit a car. You're negligent when you speed and run off the curve, etc. I don't think you would be too happy if your company said "oh sorry we're not going to pay your damages, because you were negligent when you were speeding to work".
This should have never went to the tax courts IMO.
Regardless of whether he was negligent or not, if he had an active policy and was making his payments the company should have paid out for the damages. They can and will surcharge him by raising his rates and/or cancelling some or all of his coverages, however if he was insured they should have paid.
I say this, because I work for an insurance company and if you looked at it from just a negligence point of view we would pay very few claims. You're negligent when you run the stop light and hit a car. You're negligent when you speed and run off the curve, etc. I don't think you would be too happy if your company said "oh sorry we're not going to pay your damages, because you were negligent when you were speeding to work".
This should have never went to the tax courts IMO.
Hey, can I go back 19 years, and would the Charger qualify as a collector car? Also would .24 get me in a better tax bracket? I think I've missed something
Brother that sucks!!! Loved those cars. Spent two years on highschool in a 69 coronet r/t....440 magnum, 4speed. That pic breaks my heart!
Breaks my heart too. I've a '73 Charger in my garage serving as a canoe rack at present. I'm the second owner.
jdsbusa
Registered
Very good point! I would imagine most accidents have some amount of "negligence" behind them (despite using an oxymoron to describe such acts).
As for speed limits, personally some are for safety (school zones) but others have different motives - be it fuel consumption or as some feel, revenue sources. Look at other countries such as Germany that has many parts of the Autobahns unrestricted. I don't feel any safer on my 65mph IL interstate system vs the many jaunts I made from Trier to K-town at full blast in my Camry!
If anything, the lack of driver training here in the states compared to the rigorous program in Germany makes our drivers more unsafe no matter what the speed.
S-R Racing
Registered
...made my knees get weak the next morning when I first seen it. 440 R/T SE The little white truck was parked 90 feet down the hill, not one of my better moments for sure.
Truely lucky I didnt hurt or kill someone that nite
lease:
But aren't there conditions on a policy that they tell you up front? Just becaues you pay doesn't mean the insurance company pays.
All insurance companies = Corporate Welfare
J'Man
Registered
There are exclusions, but not really for negligence (since technically that's what the insurance is for). In our state the only main thing that will cause the company to deny the claim would be misrepresentation.
You wouldn't believe some of the stuff we pay on. I should start a thread on just that.
I can see how this could be taken to both extremes as people (and lawyers) will try to push the limit. In this particular case, should this person be able to delete the cost from his taxes - and me, a taxpayer, make up the difference? Heck no.
But I can also see how and where this could lead...
But I can also see how and where this could lead...
Similar threads
