• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Driving after drinking

AsheSkyler said:
No, it's not. It's pretty safe to say you have no idea what hyperfocus is.
Click to expand...
As one with ADHD, I'm quite familiar with hyperfocus. It certainly doesn't imply distractions inprove cognitive function.
 
Last edited:
I believe that driving or riding in a car is probably the most dangerous thing that average person does on a regular basis. It seems to me that safety is very important. The drivers total attention to the task at hand (driving) should at the top of that safety list.
 
What is missing is the dumb factor. You can make new laws and restrictions all you want, take passengers out of the car but it still requires the person to follow the rules of the road.

Before you know it there will be no drinking coffee on the way to work while driving, no radio, no opening windows and every possible distraction. Where I live there is this huge owl that flys low in the early morning, well no owls either.

Driving distractions is a slippery slope and once you open your door to it ( pun intended ) where will it end?

I like traditional, no texting and driving. DUI/OUI has been against the law for decades.

2 fighting kids in the back seat is more of a distraction than a hands free phone call.
 
Christopher Nicholson said:
What is missing is the dumb factor. You can make new laws and restrictions all you want, take passengers out of the car but it still requires the person to follow the rules of the road.

Before you know it there will be no drinking coffee on the way to work while driving, no radio, no opening windows and every possible distraction. Where I live there is this huge owl that flys low in the early morning, well no owls either.

Driving distractions is a slippery slope and once you open your door to it ( pun intended ) where will it end?

I like traditional, no texting and driving. DUI/OUI has been against the law for decades.

2 fighting kids in the back seat is more of a distraction than a hands free phone call.
Click to expand...

Your logical fallacy is ...
 
That's a fancy website. I don't have a fancy website, what I do know is that the government would make a bad back seat driver.

Once again people need to follow current laws, in Massachusetts it's against the law to text and drive.

People follow current laws = less accidents.com
 
Christopher Nicholson said:
That's a fancy website. I don't have a fancy website, what I do know is that the government would make a bad back seat driver.

Once again people need to follow current laws, in Massachusetts it's against the law to text and drive.

People follow current laws = less accidents.com
Click to expand...

It's not my Web site, just one that highlights one of the flaws in your logic.

Regarding a different flaw: Which is it? Does the government make a bad backseat driver or should we obey current laws passed by government? If the government makes such a bad backseat driver, it follows that we should repeal all traffic laws. (Personally, I'm against that course of action, though certainly some laws are in need of change.)

Using a mobile device, hands free or not, while driving offers similar impairment as drinking and driving, in fact greater impairment that drinking and driving at the legal limit. Why should one be (justifiably) illegal and harshly penalized why the other is staunchly defended?
 
Last edited:
The government makes a bad backseat driver. It's illegal to drive drunk. You can get a fine if you are caught texting and driving.

That owl that flys low impairs my ability to drive to work at 4am in the morning. Infact I think that owl wants me dead. Atleast 4 ft. Wide wing span, dark black eyes, big feet.

I am waiting for a loud hoot!

Look up the laws in your state about the level of legal "blindness" you can be to drive. Or the people that have 1 arm or 1 leg.

I have narcolepsy, should I be able to drive?

People every day have far greater concerns than a cellphone while driving. Some simple over the counter medications mixed with alcohol can cause greater impairment together.
 
Though I'm not a staff member, please ensure my post don't get out of hand. Staff been closing threads lately and I don't want another thread of mine closed.
 
Christopher Nicholson said:
People every day have far greater concerns than a cellphone while driving.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it is still as bad or worse than drunk driving, objectively speaking. It makes zero sense to punish drunk driving more harshly than using a mobile phone, even hands free, while driving.
 
We can add to the list "driving under the influence of sleep deprived". I've almost fell asleep at the wheel several times - especially on the mornings we have a meeting on Monday and I only got about 3 hours sleep on Sunday and I'm coming off of a 13 hr shift. I drink a bunch of coffee, turn the radio on high, open the windows and hope to God all the lights stay green. :D
 
Jaywalker said:
Not as safe as it is to assume the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is a near certainty in this case.

As one with ADHD, I'm quite familiar with hyperfocus. It certainly doesn't imply distractions inprove cognitive function, as you imply.
Click to expand...
This may come as a shock to you, but I'm more familiar with my body and it's limitations than you are. You may know your abilities, but you are completely clueless about mine. So quit making declarations about me that you have no way of confirming or backing up.
 
How do we know it's the distraction and not the poor excuse of drivers? Maybe they need to raise the age someone is before they are allowed to drive alone. Or offer more training.

If I ordering a pizza, hands free, and they ran out of Buffalo chicken I can simply get something else. Now we take someone who likes a good argument, or a fight over something silly and yes that phone call could be a distraction.

Is it the phone call or the person making the call?
 
Christopher Nicholson said:
Is it the phone call or the person making the call?
Click to expand...

In my state simply using any handheld device at all while driving can and will get you cited by the police. Whatever degree of distraction it may or may not entail is irrelevant. Zero tolerance enforced. But then it's also a source of badly needed revenue.
 
Last edited:
The Penguin said:
As Jaywalker and AsheSkyler can't come into an agreement, I think you two should't comment to each other for this post. If you keep arguing against each other, staff might lock my post.
Click to expand...

I think I'll leave this one 'as is' as the closing of your last post promoted an outcry of me suppressing 'free speech'.

However if it continues to go downhill I will remove the offending posts.
 
Jaywalker said:
Yes, it's objectively a "true" logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
The meaning attributed to the term "logical fallacy" is sometimes ambiguous, and varies according to the person.
In the strict sense, the concept of logical fallacies applies more to deductive logic. Here's an example of such is (I don't actually believe the premises, I'm just using it as a made-up example)
All cats are carnivores
Lassie is a carnivore
Therefore Lassie is a cat.

In the more loose world of actual every day arguments, "fallacies" are not issues as often as are false facts, and poor arguments.
"Poor argument" might be a better term to use in this case. Slippery slope might sometimes be a poor argument. But sometimes things really truly do slide down a slippery slope, (study history) so it is not always wrong to use that argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom