I think I understand you, FKNA. I'm not trying to start a fight with you; I believe we disagree on the subject of drinking and riding. I make the following points for argument on the issue, and intend no personal attack on you. I respect your right to your opinion and appreciate the civil and responsible way you've expressed yourself.

You vow to continue drinking while riding, FKNA, because you consider yourself a more responsible rider when you drink than when sober.

I imagine you consider yourself a more responsible automobile driver when you drink, too; since you "know your senses are impaired and act accordingly."

I believe the driver who crippled my friend for life believed he was a more responsible driver when he drank.

Those who handle firearms when drinking may consider themselves safer and more responsible than when sober.

Airline pilots doubtless consider themselves more meticulous fliers when they drink, because they know they are imparied and act accordingly.

And brain surgerons, . . . I won't go on.

My point: Drinking and (fill in this blank, including ATV riding) may not mix.

Diogenes

 

Diogenes, the only way I have taken ANY of of your postings is as a discussion between the two of us.

In regards my drinking and riding an atv, it probably would of been best read if I would of given some additional information. I am NOT a better atv riding when drinking. When I'm drinking and riding my atv, I'm just putting around and very selective on where I ride. If I'm NOT drinking, I tend to get a lot more aggressive. That's when I'm jumping the quad, riding on two wheels, doing wheelie, hitting mud holes without checking them out first, etc. And that's why injury will most likely result while I'm sober.

I don't drink and drive my truck. That was way back when, during younger more ignorant years.

And just to set the record straight, I agree. Drinking and (fill in the blank) may not mix. I'm just saying drinking is not the CAUSE.

 

I have to agree with Diogenes on this one. I have ridden my atvs on the rode hundreds of time when I was younger. Out of all of those times, once was after drinking. I wasn't drunk, just drinking a little. It scared the daylight out of me.

Some states just past laws allowing atvs certain privledges such as crossing a two lane at a 90 degree angle and alowing atvs to travel with trafic no more than 1/2 mile on a two lane road. Do you think that law intends to let atvers that have been drinking to do this? I hope not.

Fact is alcahol delays your reaction and henders your reflexes. Those are the facts. If the guy would have been sober and ridding down the road, he more than likely would have known he was in the wrong lane. If he was riding in the woods and popped a tree while drunk, what would been the cause? Fact is, you might not know you're doing something illegal if you're intoxicated. In the end, it's alcohol that causes accidents like this.

I know someone that got TRASHED one night, ran out of beer, and stole his parents car because he was out of beer and wanted more but didn't have a car. He hit and old couple head on and killed them both instantly. Yeah HE stole the car. HE thought he was sober enough to drive. Why did he steal the car?? HE WANTED MORE ALCOHOL and ALCOHOL numbed his senses to where he thought he was 'ok to drive'. Well, what or who is to blame here? Is it his fault that he ran out of beer? Is it his fault because HE was TO DRUNK to know HE was not able to drive. Or is his parents fault for leaving the keys out. HE had never done anything like this before, so why hide the keys.

I don't drink anymore, so I can see this more clearly. I don't have a problem with beer, wine, or booze, but drinking and operating a motor vehical of ANY TYPE is wrong, dangerous, and stupid. It causes accedents. People get hurt and people die. Point blank. If you're on a trail or trace ridding and I see you drinking and ATVing, I will report it to the proper officials and/or pack up and leave. I would rather be safe than sorry.

If you can honestly sit there and say it's always the people, not alcohol, that is to blame....buddy...you are wrong. If you're going to drink and ATV, ATV then drink. Just don't do it before you go or while you are there.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but this is my opinion.

 

Lurch, I do believe somewhere down the line the point I was trying to make was lost. I'm the first to agree that alcohol is a contributing factor, but it's not the cause. If the booze was the cause, then the brewer of the booze is to blame. And if they are to blame, it's them that gets held responsible, thus it's the brewers that you get to sue.

But that's not the case. Ultimately it's the person themselves that must be held accountable.

 

First off, sugarhead, I am truly sorry to hear about your loss.

As to the other debate, about alcohol…

People make choices.

Some of these choices are to impair the brain to the point where responsible decisions can no longer be made by the effects of alcohol or any drug.

But ultimately the blame must rest on the person for making the choice. Not the choice to drink heavily, but the choice of getting on the 4 wheeler after they knowingly impair their brain.

Do we have to lock ourselves in the house after drinking a ton of alcohol? No, but understand this… If you have the desire to drink alcohol, then you obviously know the effects it causes on the brain. Hence the reason for drinking in the first place, to get that “buzz” feeling. So if a person knows the effects of drinking, then the necessary precautions should be taken. Like a designated driver or lock the keys to the car somewhere a drunk person can not get to.

Getting completely drunk is not a crime.
Loosing your sound judgment is not a crime.
A persons actions cause a crime.

Plain and simple.

 

It's not the booze that did it, It was bad judgement to get behind the wheel, or bars. Plenty of american teenager drink and know not to get behind the wheel after they have. It's the arrogant and the stupid people who think they're fine. Recreational drinking can be harmless to others if judgement is used.

Evan Wolf, 15
www.ctatv.cjb.net
CTATV@aol.com

2001 Yamaha Wolverine 350 (blue)
-Oxlite cv-boot guards
-Dimondplate aluminum: bashplate,
front skidplate, bottom skidplate
2000 Polaris Trailboss 325
-Hand guards
-Speedo,odom,tripmeter,hr meter
-Rear 23" Dirt Devil Tires
-Front rack
1998 Yamaha RT-180 Dirtbike
-Bone stock screamer(2-Stroke)
1998 Dodge Dakota SPORT V8 (red)
-Club Cab
-Tow Package
-Bed Liner
-Alpine CD deck
(I WILL be driving it as soon as i get my
licence)
1997 Sea-Doo GTX
(110HP 2-stroke)

 

First of all I'd like to extend my heartfelt sorrow at the pain and suffering your friend is now going thru and I hope that he will recover fully.

I would also like to comment on the rest of the discussion...

FKNA...you say on one hand that a person that drinks and drives is responsible for the results but the 3 year old that takes his head off with a gun laying on the table is not reponsible it is "the idot gun owner" that is at fault. The gun owner did not cause the kid to shoot himself the kid shot himself. Why isn't the kid responsible? Because he is not experienced enough to know how to handle it properly. Plainly without the gun the child would not have gotten hurt.
When a person decides to get drunk or knows that their drinking can result in the loss or diminshment of their complete faculties to carry on any necessary act then they are not mature enough to handle drinking. (CTATV you should hopefully realize that underage drinking in and of itself is irresponsible regardless of an individuals thinking on the matter)
The same with the kid and the gun. You would not expect a 3 year old to know how to handle a loaded gun but they do know enough to pull the trigger. Because the kid is too young to be responsible himself someone else must protect him from himself. Unfortunately some adults (those of drinking age) are not mature enough to handle drinking. Who then becomes responsible for them? Since they are old enough to legally drink the law cannot prevent them from it unless they are found to be in conflict with the law.
Therefor the maker of the product (the alcohol producer in this case) becomes responsible for those that use the product.
The only way a producer of such a product can reduce their reponsibility for every person that chooses to use it improperly is to place labels with warnings in very conspicuous places. That's why there are warning labels on everything.
This discussion really has gone in two directions...1- Is it a responsible act to drink and drive and 2- Who's fault is it when someone does and then causes damage by doing so.
Plainly the answer to 1- is NO.
The answer to 2- depends on who or what is the contributing factor in the case. In this case it is alcohol since without it this accident would not have happened.
A person who drives like an idiot without the use of alcohol is a natural born idiot and must be held responsible.
A person who drives like and idiot AND uses alcohol is a drunken idiot that is clearly not responsible enough to drink regardless of their age and should be cut off from alcohol for an indefinate period of time. In this case the alcohol is the contributing factor.
One final analagy... there are three guys walking thru town late at night a smart guy, an idiot, and a drunken idiot. The drunken idiot says to the other two...lets rob that store. The smart guy says no and leaves. The idiot says...it sounds like something I could do but I'm not really sure. The drunken idiot says...come on lets do it... and then drags the idiot in and robs the store. When they get caught who is gonna take the responsibility for the crime the most? The drunken idiot because he was the catalyst that made it all happen. Without him it wouldn't have happened. Without alcohol even an idiot would not drive head on into a car.
FKNA, I'm not trying to single you out and bash you. I have counseled many people many times about alcohol and it's drawbacks. I drink myself on occasion and I don't want anyone to think that I am against alcohol but it MUST BE USED RESPONSIBLY !!! which means using it irresponsibly can cost someone their life!
Alcohol does kill people because there are idiots that don't know how to use it properly!

 

Holyman, no the gun owner did not cause the 3 year old to shoot himself. But as a gun owner one must be a responsible gun owner. And by leaving a gun out in plain view when their are children around that are too young to know any better, the gun owner is ultimately responsible. It was his irresponsible act that caused the shooting death. Let me reiterate, IRRESPONSIBLE ACT. Booze didn't cause the accident, was merely a contributing factor. It was the irresponsible act of the person drinking then getting behind the wheel. Coffee wasn't the root cause of that woman burning her legs. It was her irresponsible act of placing that hot cup of coffee between her legs. A PERSON MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS. And let's stop trying to place the blame elsewhere.

In regards to these warning labels you speak of. Plainly put, we live in a society where people do not believe in INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. In Florida they wanted a re-vote because they didn't follow voter instructions. At home I have a hair dryer that says "do not use in the shower" on the warning label. I have a sun screen for my truck that has in big letters "do not operate vehicle when sunscreen is in place". The list goes on and on.

"Therefore the maker of the product (the alcohol producer in this case) becomes responsible for those that use the product." That is TOTAL BS. If you have the proper licensing it is perfectly legal to make and distribute the booze. The maker cannot be held accountable because someone miuses their product. Next I suppose you will say that Yamaha is responsible if I break my neck because I was jumping my quad. Or Chevy should be held accountable if I wreck my truck because I was doing 70mph in a 30mph zone. If the maker of a product makes a defective product, sure lets hold them accountable. But you cannot hold them accountable when someone misuses their product.

"MUST BE USED RESPONSIBLY !!!" I agree. And when something is NOT used responsibly, be it booze, the use of an atv, chainsaw, etc. it is the person that is using the items irresponsibly that should be held accountable, NOT the manufacture of those products.

"Alcohol does kill people because there are idiots that don't know how to use it properly!".....And pencils cause spelling errors. It's high time we move today's society back to the point where individuals are held accountable for their own actions.

 

I agree that the gun owner did not cause the child to shoot himself. The child shot himself. But the child was apparently ignorant that putting the gun to his head and pulling the trigger was a very stupid thing. In this case who is responsible? At first you said it was the gun owner then you said it wasn't. My point is that if the owner of the gun is not at fault since he didn't shoot the kid and the kid is not at fault because he is too ignorant to know how to operate the gun safely, then the gun must be at fault.
Following this line of reasoning...
If the owner of a quad is old enough to legally own a quad and is also old enough to buy alcohol and consume it but is not mature enough to use them responsibly, then who is at fault when he hurts himself? The people that theoretically had enough sense to sell it [either the quad or the alcohol] had the opportunity to prevent him from buying it thus preventing him from hurting himself and others.
To address your question about hurting yourself jumping your quad the answer depends on what the circumstances are.
A- you don't have common sense yet you are old enough to legally buy a quad and ride it. If it is obvious that you are senseless when you buy the quad the dealer has an obligation to not sell you the quad. If it is not obvious to him that you are senseless then it is the manufacturers duty to warn you that you may be in danger if you do certain things like jumping the quad. If you do not have enough common sense to figure out that jumping a quad can result in injury then it is their [the manufacturer] responsibilty to tell you.
B- if you have enough sense to know that jumping a quad could be dangerous but you decide to do it anyway, then you are responsible if you break your neck doing it.
Alcohol has the unique ability to change an otherwise responsible person into an irresponsible one with only a few drinks. Therefor a truely responsible person would NOT drink and drive. An irresponsible person would.
You have said that in your younger days you did irresponsible things. Now you are more mature and you have the ability to discern that some of your former actions were indeed foolish. Yet, I'm sure at the time they seemed like good ideas. If you didn't know better, how could you be held responsible? If you did know better then why would you ever do such a thing?
In short what I'm saying is that all people should be held to the amount of responsibility that they are capable of understanding. If they don't know that drinking and driving is flirting with death, then they're not too smart but they're also not capable of being responsible. The rest of us know that drinking and driving kills and a truly responsible person would never do it. Now I hope you see where I'm coming from.

 

Holyman, I'll answer your post in the new thread that was started titled "Where is the responsibility line". I think it's best we move this converstation over there. Sugarhead had a friend involved in a tragic accident and I don't want to further take away from that by continuing this discussion in this thread.

Thanks.