[GP86]

Wow. Besides the interior, that is identical to my car and this accident happened not too far from me. Very tragic.

[hotlap]

The performance level (of the even the SS) has crossed over to where you can quickly get into trouble. Fail to treat it with respect and it can bite you and those around you.

I don't drink at all and have been that way almost 100% since I was 23. Are bars now required to ask if you are driving? I don't see how else this falls on anyone but the driver. RIP

[Heavymetal454]

Originally Posted by hotlap

The performance level (of the even the SS) has crossed over to where you can quickly get into trouble. Fail to treat it with respect and it can bite you and those around you.

I don't drink at all and have been that way almost 100% since I was 23. Are bars now required to ask if you are driving? I don't see how else this falls on anyone but the driver. RIP

See my previous post

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by Heavymetal454

I believe there will always be those who seek to pass blame but to put things in perspective consider this. I could go to a liquor store and bring home a large quantity of alcohol. If I were to drink far too much and become impaired we can't blame the store for selling it to me. The vast majority of cases probably don't happen this way which is to say most drunk driving accidents don't start in the home they start elsewhere. Since drinking is a social activity most drunk drivers are likely at a public place and as such they are more visible as impairment sets in. The owners and staff of those personnel "share" some responsibility to safeguard everyone by not " contributing" to that level of impairment. I'm being very specific here since I believe the majority of responsibility is on the person. You simply don't keep drinking until you lose all rational thought. If you don't anticipate the onset of intoxication beforehand you're not really in control and you shouldn't be drinking in the first place. Drinking responsibly entails knowing what you're drinking and not exceeding what you're body can handle without a plan whether it's getting a ride, having another driver or allowing sufficient time to pass which could be quite a while. In any case getting drunk shouldn't be a surprise, like holy cow, I'm drunk, how did that happen? Shop owners have the advantage of bring in a position to choose to serve you or not. Even the server knows what's on the tab and after how much time. It's important for them to help guide you in the right direction. That's all. They are protecting you and the rest of us who aren't drinking at the same time.

Get all of that. You missed my point though. It was posted above that the last place to serve him last will be in trouble. What if he only had one drink at the last place and didn't show signs of being visibility impaired? Should they still be on the hook? I know several people, from being around drinking for many years, that don't show just how bad they are on the outside in a bar setting. My point was that if they go after one then they should go after all that were involved with getting him to that point. After all, any one drink didn't get him drunk. See how things can snowball? Maybe everyone he encountered that day on his drunk fest should be arrested for not taking his keys. It said he ate with his family before he went out, maybe they should all be arested. Maybe the manufacturer of what he was drinking should be on the hook.

I agree that if you show signs of intoxication that you shouldn't be served. After all that is the law. That law is there to protect the bar owner though not the drinker or the public. I see it all the time in my local pub. A drunk will come in ,and they turn him down because he's visibility
Intoxicated. But what happens? He turns around, out the door and right back in his car to find a place that will serve him. So what did that law protect if he leaves there and kills someone?
I guess everyone in the bar that saw him should go to jail ,including myself if he crashes.

What about doctors that give people drugs that are considered to cause impairment and will get you a DUI if a blood test is performed? That's no different that than bartender selling drinks. Guess those doctors should be on the hook too along with the pharmacy that filled the prescription and the sixteen year old girl behind the counter that rang her out.

[Heavymetal454]

[QUOTE=motorhead;9197007]Get all of that. You missed my point though. It was posted above that the last place to serve him last will be in trouble. What if he only had one drink at the last place and didn't show signs of being visibility impaired? Should they still be on the hook?

I agree that if you show signs of intoxication that you shouldn't be served. After all that is the law. That law is there to protect the bar owner though not the drinker or the public.

Ok there is a lot here do let me just share my vantage point on a few.

The last place that served him had the greatest opportunity to see signs of impairment. I don't write the law but I'm basing my thoughts on what we can presume logically. Did all of the establishments he visited "contribute" in some way? Yes. If he had a Shirley temple at the first stop its pointless to go back to square one.

Your statement about not bring served if you show signs of impairment exemplifies my point. The first establishment, if there was more than one, would never have seen that. The last had the greater opportunity so therefore logically speaking the legal system would hold them more liable than any of the others.

As far as protecting the bar owners, the fact is by refusing to serve you they indirectly protect everyone. Of course nothing stops him from going to a store and buying something unless of course the clerk refuses as well. Point being at best it's a roadblock. The more fences you need to cross the less likely you are to continue your binge.

The fact that he had dinner with his family or sueing everyone in the bar is not germane. While his family may not have had any idea where he was going or how long after this happened they weren't there as his intoxicatingly levels rose. The people in the bar aren't there to watch over you either. The bar owners have to exercise reasonable caution. They are not insurers and are not being paid to ensure your safety. They do however have a responsibility to their patrons as well as those who this individual will come in contact with.

There is a great deal of hyperbole here. It's a frustrating dilemma to say the least. The one thing perhaps we can all agree on is that IT WAS PREVENTABLE. Whether we say mutual culpability or otherwise. This did not need to happen.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by hotlap

I don't drink at all and have been that way almost 100% since I was 23. Are bars now required to ask if you are driving?

Any bar employee has to assume that at least one person in every party that walks through the door will be driving afterward. Maybe some day it will come to that.

You can't assume that sober levels of judgment will remain intact during and after drinking, which is what pinning the entire responsibility on the would-be driver amounts to. In many cases, mutually exclusive would be closer to reality.


Norm

[Heavymetal454]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Any bar employee has to assume that at least one person in every party that walks through the door will be driving afterward. Maybe some day it will come to that.

You can't assume that sober levels of judgment will remain intact during and after drinking, which is what pinning the entire responsibility on the would-be driver amounts to. In many cases, mutually exclusive would be closer to reality.


Norm

Sam Malone, Woody Boyd and Coach wish to thank you. Please continue with your regularly scheduled programming.

[motorhead]

[QUOTE=Heavymetal454;9197035]

Originally Posted by motorhead

Get all of that. You missed my point though. It was posted above that the last place to serve him last will be in trouble. What if he only had one drink at the last place and didn't show signs of being visibility impaired? Should they still be on the hook?

I agree that if you show signs of intoxication that you shouldn't be served. After all that is the law. That law is there to protect the bar owner though not the drinker or the public.

Ok there is a lot here do let me just share my vantage point on a few.

The last place that served him had the greatest opportunity to see signs of impairment. I don't write the law but I'm basing my thoughts on what we can presume logically. Did all of the establishments he visited "contribute" in some way? Yes. If he had a Shirley temple at the first stop its pointless to go back to square one.

Your statement about not bring served if you show signs of impairment exemplifies my point. The first establishment, if there was more than one, would never have seen that. The last had the greater opportunity so therefore logically speaking the legal system would hold them more liable than any of the others.

As far as protecting the bar owners, the fact is by refusing to serve you they indirectly protect everyone. Of course nothing stops him from going to a store and buying something unless of course the clerk refuses as well. Point being at best it's a roadblock. The more fences you need to cross the less likely you are to continue your binge.

The fact that he had dinner with his family or sueing everyone in the bar is not germane. While his family may not have had any idea where he was going or how long after this happened they weren't there as his intoxicatingly levels rose. The people in the bar aren't there to watch over you either. The bar owners have to exercise reasonable caution. They are not insurers and are not being paid to ensure your safety. They do however have a responsibility to their patrons as well as those who this individual will come in contact with.

There is a great deal of hyperbole here. It's a frustrating dilemma to say the least. The one thing perhaps we can all agree on is that IT WAS PREVENTABLE. Whether we say mutual culpability or otherwise. This did not need to happen.

Your post has a lot of assumptions. How do we know that he wasn't already loaded when he left his family? Does it still all fall on the last place who may have only served him one drink and he didn't show signs of intoxication? See my point?

None of us know the facts, but I still have a problem with pinning it on the last place when it reads like he made a day of it at many places.

Ones person's bad decision making shouldn't cause someone else their business and possibly their freedom unless they were activity promoting that person to make those bad decisions. I have been in bars that try to get as much in you as possible and have watched many weak minded people get sucked in. In this case the bar owner and server should hold part of it if something happens. To me though it really comes down to the person. Chances are if this kid drove like a nut drunk. He probably did it sober too. The same result probably would have happened anyhow. Some people shouldn't own powerful cars because they aren't responsible enough to own them.

[Heavymetal454]

Achems razor. It's a principle which contends that between competing hypothesis the one with the least assumptions wins. If he was that drunk when he left his family he likely wouldn't have gone to that many places drinking in the first place. Number 2 it's more likely that he went to multiple places and became more intoxicated as the night wore on. We're there multiple opportunities to cut him off prior to this tragic accident? Yes. Is it fair to only hold the last place accountable? No. Is it logical to assume that the last place was more culpable than the first? Yes. Should everyone from the people who manufactured it to the establishments that served it be held liable? No. Is the law always fair? No. Is anyone even listening to what I'm saying? No.

The most plausible explanation to this accident is he drank too much, add to that the fact the bar owners may have been somewhat negligent if they saw signs of impairment snd took no action whatsoever.

I'm not into the blame game. If that was the case we could talk about kids falling in gorilla enclosures or kids getting snatched up by alligators. Nobody forced him to drink. If it makes you feel better I'd say the responsibility is 90% on him and 10% the bar. No one stepped in to help. Apparently not his friends either if he was out with others. I wouldn't want to be the friend who let him leave that way. I would think maybe a server or two might feel the same way. I find it difficult to believe he looked 100% when he left before this happened.

Lastly to set the record straight you can be a jerk if you're sober too so the speed alone rests entirely on the driver. No one else. Maybe GM shouldn't build fast cars either. We are after all in Russia aren't we?

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by Heavymetal454

Achems razor. It's a principle which contends that between competing hypothesis the one with the least assumptions wins. If he was that drunk when he left his family he likely wouldn't have gone to that many places drinking in the first place. Number 2 it's more likely that he went to multiple places and became more intoxicated as the night wore on. We're there multiple opportunities to cut him off prior to this tragic accident? Yes. Is it fair to only hold the last place accountable? No. Is it logical to assume that the last place was more culpable than the first? Yes. Should everyone from the people who manufactured it to the establishments that served it be held liable? No. Is the law always fair? No. Is anyone even listening to what I'm saying? No.

The most plausible explanation to this accident is he drank too much, add to that the fact the bar owners may have been somewhat negligent if they saw signs of impairment snd took no action whatsoever.

I'm not into the blame game. If that was the case we could talk about kids falling in gorilla enclosures or kids getting snatched up by alligators. Nobody forced him to drink. If it makes you feel better I'd say the responsibility is 90% on him and 10% the bar. No one stepped in to help. Apparently not his friends either if he was out with others. I wouldn't want to be the friend who let him leave that way. I would think maybe a server or two might feel the same way. I find it difficult to believe he looked 100% when he left before this happened.

Lastly to set the record straight you can be a jerk if you're sober too so the speed alone rests entirely on the driver. No one else. Maybe GM shouldn't build fast cars either. We are after all in Russia aren't we?

nice chating with you. I think we both have some valid points.

[Hypertrophy]

Seeing the results of a crash like that in a car you drive serves as a good reminder, as long as we make an effort to remember.

[mt3130]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Any bar employee has to assume that at least one person in every party that walks through the door will be driving afterward. Maybe some day it will come to that.

You can't assume that sober levels of judgment will remain intact during and after drinking, which is what pinning the entire responsibility on the would-be driver amounts to. In many cases, mutually exclusive would be closer to reality.


Norm

While I completely agree with what you are saying, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the person to make alternative arrangements while sober to make sure this very thing doesn't happen?

The 22 year olds I work with will drive home (or leave their cars at the office), then use Uber to go out and party for the night. If a bunch of kids that are barely old enough to drink can think that way, there's no excuse for this guy.

He made a bunch of bad decisions in a row and paid the ultimate price for it.

[United_727]

I believe the car split the way it did because he it a pole/tree straight on doing 80.

[Thor142]

That sucks. Poor guy. I'd just like to add to this discussion that the guy didn't have to be trashed to lose control of a car going over 80mph. All it takes is a split second of delayed reaction. This could just as easily have happened playing with the infotainment system. To put it in perspective, 80mph is 117 feet per second. If you take your eyes off the road for a couple seconds and you can be in BIG trouble. Add to that the delayed reaction of 1 or 2 more seconds by only having a couple drinks and things can get ugly.