Carmelo Anthony busted for DUI

[mojorizen7]

I think it was John Madden that once said "The more rules that you make, the more there are to be broken..." Or something close to that.

 

[nurnay]

Uh, no. The issue is how well you process information and how quickly you react to it. The label doesn't make any difference.

There is some truth to this. Driving home 2 nights ago, this dude in front of me kept leaning over to mess with his stereo and was weaving all over the place. Distractions = more risky driving.

As far as drunk drivers, this thread made me think of this from Family Guy. Classic:

"Uh, OK, who's drunk, but that special kind of drunk where you're a better driver because you know you're drunk? You know, the kind of drunk where you probably shouldn't drive, but you do anyway because, I mean, come on, you got to get your car home. Right? I mean, I mean, what do they expect me to do, take a bus? Is-is that what they want? For me to take a bus? Well, screw that! You take a bus."

 

[Cheesewater]

You're comparing data from two different sources, using different ways of counting and different methodologies?

Forget it. You'll believe what you want to.

Wow. Conversing with you is like trying to carry home a rabid porcupine in a bag full of water balloons.

One story gives a figure for cell phone related deaths.
One source gives a figure for alcohol related deaths.
You are telling me that the only way to compare the figures is if they come from the same test? These weren't figures from some experiment. They are the reported figures. I think somebody counted up how many died in car crashes attributed to cell phone distraction and somebody else counted up the deaths due to alcohol impaired drivers. You can compare the numbers. No other conditions need apply.

I get now that you were actually justifying your statement that cell phone distraction is just as bad as alcohol impairment. Your linked story backs that up. But A) drunk drivers are more dangerous and B) weren't we talking about Carmelo Anthony?

 

[elindholm]

You are telling me that the only way to compare the figures is if they come from the same test?

The cell phone article explains why they are probably undercounting.

But A) drunk drivers are more dangerous

The data do not support that assertion.

and B) weren't we talking about Carmelo Anthony?

We were talking about the hilariously exaggerated self-righteousness of those on this board who condemn drunk driving beyond all other sins.

 

[mojorizen7]

The data do not support that assertion.

You really believe that?
Again, which group of drivers is more likely to find trouble?
Try to answer this using purely common sense.
100 distracted talkers?
or
100 impaired drunk drivers?

 

[Cheesewater]

The data do not support that assertion.

What data? The data I posted, 2,600 deaths < 13,470 deaths, supports that assertion. There is actually no data in your story asserting that cell phone drivers can be more distracted than drunk drivers. Just the sentence you quoted.

We were talking about the hilariously exaggerated self-righteousness of those on this board who condemn drunk driving beyond all other sins.

You started it!

 

[elindholm]

Try to answer this using purely common sense.
100 distracted talkers?
or
100 impaired drunk drivers?

So any result contrary to "common sense" is necessarily incorrect? Sounds to me like you're living about 1000 years too late.

 

[mojorizen7]

We were talking about the hilariously exaggerated self-righteousness of those on this board who condemn drunk driving beyond all other sins.

Let me just say that i once payed a very high price for my stupidity concerning a DUI. I personally find the difference between cell phone stupidity & drinking & driving to be appropriately exaggerated.
As i mentioned before, they are both potentially equally as disastrous, but i believe that if you were to take a poll(maybe one of us should) on asking people whether they'd rather be stuck on the road surrounded by distracted cell phone talkers or drunk drivers the results would show that people have enough common sense to realize the lesser of two evils in terms of their safety.

 

[mojorizen7]

So any result contrary to "common sense" is necessarily incorrect? Sounds to me like you're living about 1000 years too late.

Common sense is underrated in the modern era of multi-media-believe -what-we-tell-you age.

 

[elindholm]

What data?

The data that led to the researchers' conclusions, obviously. You're right that this summary did not present all of the data. So I suppose you could argue that (a) the summary misunderstood the study or (b) the study was methodologically flawed. I find those both unlikely.

The data I posted, 2,600 deaths < 13,470 deaths, supports that assertion.

They do no such thing. No one knows how many deaths are due to cell phone users. The 2600 is an estimate that surely represents undercounting, for reasons that should be obvious and are partly articulated in the summary article. (Did you read the second half of it?)

You're also using absolute numbers to try to draw a conclusion about rates. The 2600 figure comes from a period during which cell phone use was much less common than it is now. If you did a study finding out how many deaths are caused annually by insane people speeding the wrong way up the interstate while firing a machine gun out the window, you'd get a low absolute number, but it wouldn't mean that people in that category are less dangerous than drunk drivers.

There is actually no data in your story asserting that cell phone drivers can be more distracted than drunk drivers. Just the sentence you quoted.

Like I said, you'll believe what you want to believe. The scientific result threatens you and so you are looking for ways to discredit it.

 

[elindholm]

Common sense is underrated in the modern era of multi-media-believe -what-we-tell-you age.

Yep, that response was to be expected. So much garbage pollutes the airwaves these days that most people don't understand the value of the scientific method anymore. Let me guess -- you also think global warming is an opinion, right?

 

[elindholm]

if you were to take a poll(maybe one of us should) on asking people whether they'd rather be stuck on the road surrounded by distracted cell phone talkers or drunk drivers the results would show that people have enough common sense to realize the lesser of two evils in terms of their safety.

It's hard to believe you're serious. "Common sense" tells us (at least it tells most people -- maybe we should take a poll, snicker) that traveling at an altitude of 30,000 feet in a pressurized metal tube is less safe than driving on a paved freeway at 55 mph. It sure as hell feels that way to me. And yet statistically we know that flying is orders of magnitude safer.

If you're going to put all your faith in "common sense," there's no point doing any research at all. The number of crucial advances in human understanding that have proved contrary to "common sense" is too numerous to mention.

 

[mojorizen7]

Yep, that response was to be expected. So much garbage pollutes the airwaves these days that most people don't understand the value of the scientific method anymore. Let me guess -- you also think global warming is an opinion, right?

No i believe it. Not just because i've heard the facts either. I've been living in AZ for 38 yrs and the climate has changed drastically since the mid-70's. If you continue to put more people who drive more cars, who use more air polluting products, who scrape away more forests, common sense will tell you that the Earth isn't going to respond well to it.

 

[Cheesewater]

The data that led to the researchers' conclusions, obviously. You're right that this summary did not present all of the data. So I suppose you could argue that (a) the summary misunderstood the study or (b) the study was methodologically flawed. I find those both unlikely.

Concerning drunk driving it presented ZERO data.

They do no such thing. No one knows how many deaths are due to cell phone users. The 2600 is an estimate that surely represents undercounting, for reasons that should be obvious and are partly articulated in the summary article. (Did you read the second half of it?)

If the estimate is wildly out of whack, they are irresponsible in reporting it. I think it is not as undercounted as you would like. I read the article 4 times. It's mostly about how cell phone drivers are annoying and simulate a much older motorist.

You're also using absolute numbers to try to draw a conclusion about rates. The 2600 figure comes from a period during which cell phone use was much less common than it is now. If you did a study finding out how many deaths are caused annually by insane people speeding the wrong way up the interstate while firing a machine gun out the window, you'd get a low absolute number, but it wouldn't mean that people in that category are less dangerous than drunk drivers.

I'm not trying to draw a conclusion about rates. I simply stated that, in support of the assertion that drunk drivers are more dangerous than cell phone drivers, drunk driving deaths outnumbered cell phone deaths 13,000 to 2,600.

Like I said, you'll believe what you want to believe. The scientific result threatens you and so you are looking for ways to discredit it.

I'll believe what the concrete data shows me. I don't know where you get that I am threatened by a "scientific result". Cracks like that damage your reputation as a thoughtful person to me, not that I imagine you care.

 

[mojorizen7]

It's hard to believe you're serious. "Common sense" tells us (at least it tells most people -- maybe we should take a poll, snicker) that traveling at an altitude of 30,000 feet in a pressurized metal tube is less safe than driving on a paved freeway at 55 mph. It sure as hell feels that way to me. And yet statistically we know that flying is orders of magnitude safer.

If you're going to put all your faith in "common sense," there's no point doing any research at all. The number of crucial advances in human understanding that have proved contrary to "common sense" is too numerous to mention.

Why do you assume that?
Many people are simply afraid to fly due to all kinds of reasons.
Are these pilots drinking & flying? Are they busy chatting away on their cell phones?(sorry that was meant to be funny)
I believe in doing research but the problem here is that you seem to be arguing a point which states that those(including myself) that take the high horse when condemning drunk drivers are somehow overlooking the more serious "crime" of blabbing on the cell phone. You can have your unrealistic facts my friend because i prefer to deal in reality and in this case....i'll stick to the scenario of driving home late at night surrounded by sober, however distracted people on their cell phones while you can make your way home surrounded by drunks driving around with one eye closed so they can make out the lanes in front of them.
Good luck.
You're right,you won't convince me

 

[elindholm]

Are these pilots drinking & flying? Are they busy chatting away on their cell phones?

Heh, I think.

I believe in doing research but the problem here is that you seem to be arguing a point which states that those(including myself) that take the high horse when condemning drunk drivers are somehow overlooking the more serious "crime" of blabbing on the cell phone.

Hmm, okay, fair enough. I did not mean to imply that cell phone use is a more serious crime. It's just that what gets me is when people draw this vague line in the sand and say "Anything wrong on this side of the line is okay, because I do it, but if you do anything on that side of the line you're the scum of the earth." We went through the same routine with Bryant's sexual assault, when in fact all he was really guilty of was grossing a girl out with a porn fantasy. (Well, that and adultery.)

But in any case, I did not intend to lump you into the group of "they."

You can have your unrealistic facts my friend because i prefer to deal in reality and in this case....i'll stick to the scenario of driving home late at night surrounded by sober, however distracted people on their cell phones

I'm not sure which I'd prefer, to be honest. Most drunks drive slowly, as you say, making some attempt to be safe because they know they are impaired. Of course you get the crazies that drive 100 mph, but I think they are in the minority. When I spot a drunk on the road I try to steer clear of him, but I suppose I must miss ten for every one I detect. Cell phone users, on the other hand, catch me by surprise, and what's worse (in my opinion) is that they are too arrogant to believe they are impaired, so they don't give off any telltale warning signs.

In any case, I don't think that "common sense" is a satisfactory arbiter.

 

[elindholm]

Concerning drunk driving it presented ZERO data.

Here's the whole study, if you are interested: http://www.hfes.org/Web/PubPages/celldrunk.pdf

If the estimate is wildly out of whack, they are irresponsible in reporting it.

Yes. Now that I've read the actual study, I agree that the article didn't do a particularly good job of summarizing it. (They did get the essence correct, however.)

I'll believe what the concrete data shows me. I don't know where you get that I am threatened by a "scientific result". Cracks like that damage your reputation as a thoughtful person to me, not that I imagine you care.

Well, no, once you decided to uncork this barb:

Hm. Okay, well, you're the expert. You oughta know.

I sort of concluded that you weren't all that interested in thoughtful discussion. Basically you didn't like the information that I was presenting, so you decided to attack me. That's not the behavior of someone who wants to engage in thoughtful discourse.

 

[Cheesewater]

Well, no, once you decided to uncork this barb:
I sort of concluded that you weren't all that interested in thoughtful discussion. Basically you didn't like the information that I was presenting, so you decided to attack me. That's not the behavior of someone who wants to engage in thoughtful discourse.

I apologize. I really tried to respond to that. I actually honestly thought you had the knowledge at hand. No kidding.

 

[elindholm]

I apologize. I really tried to respond to that. I actually honestly thought you had the knowledge at hand. No kidding.

Okay, well fair enough. I think we agree, anyway, that drunk drivers are bad. My sensitivity to how this board handles such things goes way back to when before you joined, so it really isn't directed toward you at all.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

So any result contrary to "common sense" is necessarily incorrect? Sounds to me like you're living about 1000 years too late.

Gather round children, as I explain what a Red Herring fallacy is.

 

[boisesuns]

I applaud Carmelo Anothony. Who else could get a DUI and turn it into a discussion on Global Warming and distracted cell phone drivers? This is a man that cares about the issues!

If anything the nuggests should get an extra game this season.

 

[nashman]

Camelo is an idiot and will get what he deserves eventually.

 

[nowagimp]

There's no need to be sarcastic just because you missed the story.

http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html

"The scientists also found previously that chatty motorists are less adept than drunken drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08."

Look, those are the facts. You don't have to like them. But singling out drunk drivers as the ONLY evil drivers out there is simply inaccurate. There are lots of people who should not be on the road, be they cell phone users, prone to rage, way too old, or just plain stupid.

I would never try it, but I'm pretty sure that I could be legally impaired by alcohol and still perform better in a driving test than half the drivers on the road. Unsafe driving is a huge problem, and it is appropriate for us to target drunks, but it's only fair to be honest about how widespread the hazards are.

Good point, Eric. Drivers talking on cellphones are the cause of many dangerous maneuvers on the road, I see their lack of awareness just about every day. The only reason that they arent illegal cross the country yet is the lobbyists and their lawyers. Having driven a motorcycle alot in traffic when I was younger, I know whether the drivers around me are even aware I am there(survival instinct). About 90% of people talking on cellphones are not aware of whats around them. DWI may kill more, but I am sure many people get killed and hurt by drivers using cellphones. I have 2-3 near misses every year by drivers who werent aware of their intended exit and swerve across two lanes without so much as a signal. I have gotten to the point -that at least in the daylight- I know whos on a phone around me and get away from them asap.

 

[Southpaw]

Nuggets' Anthony Apologizes for Arrest on DUI Charge
Email this Story

Apr 15, 1:21 PM (ET)

DENVER (AP) -NBA All-Star Carmelo Anthony has apologized for his arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.

The Denver Nuggets forward spoke for about 2 minutes Tuesday at the Pepsi Center, reading from a prepared statement and also talking off-the-cuff. Teammate Allen Iverson stood off to the side as Anthony spoke.

Police say Anthony was pulled over for weaving and failing to dim his lights at about 4 a.m. Monday on Interstate 25. He was alone in the car.

His arrest came hours after his worst game of the season, when he scored 11 points in a 111-94 victory over Houston on Sunday night.

and what was Iverson supposed to be symbolic of?

Can't wait to see that Kodak moment.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

We talkin about drivin down the road.

Not a game, not practice, but drivin.