iacas

15 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

NO THEY DO NOT! At least not in high school. At that stage of development, the guys have a great advantage. Besides, this is just making the best of a difficult situation. I don't know where you live, but there are school systems here in Ohio where it's getting difficult to field a complete football or baseball team, let alone a golf team! 

There are a frightening number of schools looking at 7 on 7, or 8 on 8 football! Where will the golfers come from?

I know a lady who lives near a local course that we really like, She played on her boy's HS golf team way back in the day! Why? Because there was no other alternative. She played there, or she did not!

You once again missed the point.

9 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Touche.  On the "no" voter thing.  But like I said... feeding the sharks.  I'm trying to find a middle ground for you guys but it seems like human lives come in second place to your need for total accuracy and fear of inconvenience.

Nope. That is troll-level phrasing there.

6 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

No.  They're going to look for you, maybe pull you over and ONLY arrest you if you blow over .08.

Uhm, no thank you. To ALL of that.

Ridiculous position to take, IMO.

I think you’re secretly a No voter because you’re doing such an awesome job of tanking the “yes” side of the argument.

7 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

And here's an idea... instead of the system bricking your car how about if it shows you register above the legal limit then that info is forwarded to the local police and state patrol along with your plate number and your GPS location.  That way only the truly guilty are caught and Pretzel can get out of that Denver parking garage... with a newer car of course, not diesel so his injectors and fuel lines clog with diesel gel.  P.S.  I drove that same 240D for years, though a one year older model.

Awesome. So now when my car sensor malfunctions the police are going to pull me over and/or arrest me though I’ve done nothing wrong. Sign me up!!!</sarcasm>

Oy. No.

What's the form of play? Fourball?

Did you look at 23.8?

Your hands move out and up rather than tracing inward. That’s all.

A little of that is fine. You’re bordering on a bit too much IMO.

 As I noted it does help you loop it back to the inside on the downswing.

Wasn’t legal before 2019, still not legal now.

Assuming by “behind” you mean on the extension of their line.

7 minutes ago, Patch said:

I am reading alot of replies in this thread, that are speculative at best. I say speculative because, unless you personally have lived through a car wreck caused by a drunk driver, I consider any answr to be speculation by those who have been fortunate. Knock on wood. .

Let me ask a speculative question.

As "no" voter, if you were to lose an immediate family member, relative, even a great friend to a drunk driver, knowing that legislative technology could have prevented your loss, would you change your vote?

No. And you seem to be making a bunch of assumptions yourself.

4 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

You should. Increasing distance isn’t always pinned to more flexibility and strength but simply better body mechanics and synchronization which anyone can improve on.

Older players can also still train for speed alone, too: 

I mean this, particularly then first one:

On 9/25/2019 at 4:40 PM, billchao said:

Honestly I don't like the Mevo video function because it doesn't record in slow motion. If you want to get good videos that are useful for analysis, you should record in slow motion and from good camera angles.

https://thesandtrap.com/b/playing_tips/filming_your_swing

Yes it can. There's a slow-mo option right in the settings.

4 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

What if a device such as this reduced the alcohol related deaths to 3000, from 10,000?

It does not change my vote.

4 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Too many alcohol related driving deaths are not the driver... but an innocent person being on the road at the wrong time.

I didn't spend a ton of time looking into it, but it seems from a few sites that about 60-65% of the deaths in alcohol-related auto accidents are the driver. Another 20% are the passenger of the driver responsible (or irresponsible) for the crash, and another good chunk are motorcyclists. Surprisingly (to me anyway) few "other" people (innocent persons being on the road at the wrong time) are killed by drunk drivers.

And that "wrong time" is basically the middle of the night. The odds of dying - when you're not the drunk driver himself - at 10am on a Tuesday are pretty freaking slim. Or 2pm on a Thursday. Or whatever.

If you're a drunk driver that's drunk and driving between 9pm and 3am, then yeah, odds go up that you're gonna kill yourself. But you're probably not gonna kill anyone who's just standing around, because there are not actually many people just standing around between those times.

4 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

And sometimes the driver, let's say my sister Beth, a good person (not a habitual drunk driver) had one too many at her 10 year high school reunion. This device would keep her off the road too... if she had a newer car.  And for her 30th reunion it would definitely keep her off the road, new car or old.

And it might keep me off the road because it fails, or make me late for a meeting, or a wedding, or to catch a flight, and cost me a thousand bucks to have repaired, or… or… or…

I see little point in playing games with stories. They're emotional, and you can make them up just like I could make up stories about how inconvenient, costly, detrimental, etc. these could be.

Also, I notice how you gloss over the stuff that's inconvenient to you, like your complete misunderstanding of the word "bricked."

In short… punish those who break the law, and let the punishments of those serve as a deterrent to others. Any and all reasonable measures to curb drunk driving (or bad driving in general), I'm in favor. But this isn't, IMO, reasonable.

And that's all it boils down to, really. We disagree on whether this is reasonable or not.

A few quick hits.

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

I must point out that using statistics in this manner is an absolute disgrace.

I disagree. You're talking about inconveniencing millions of people.

Auto deaths per year in the U.S.: ~37,000.
Auto deaths involving alcohol: ~10,000.

That's under 30%, and most of those are the driver.

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

Auto crashes are the leading cause of death for many age groups, particularly young people in their late teens and early 20s. Most of these deaths are far more tragic than heart disease and diabetes at older ages.

Very few of them are alcohol-related.

If you want to say we should push back the driving age to 21 or 25 or something, you might be able to make a good case for it using these stats.

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

Auto crashes are the biggest threat to the lives of my children and driving is by far the most dangerous thing each of us does each and every day.

How often are your kids out between the hours of 10pm and 4am, when most alcohol-related accidents happen?

I agree, keeping them safe between the hours of 3pm to 6pm goes up if they're in a car (rush hour), but that's just automobile accidents. This type of device, when functioning properly, will have basically ZERO effect there. None. Except for the few bricked cars non-intoxicated people can't start. 😛 And then when they can get it to start, maybe they'll cause more accidents because they're now late.

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

Anything that has a chance to reduce this risk should be explored imo. I generally do not like to give up "freedom" for security, but am willing to make some compromises to mitigate the risk of auto crashes.

Here's another stat for you: ~3500 deaths are caused by drowning in pools every year. About 1/3 as many as alcohol-related automobile accidents. And far, far, far fewer swim in pools, and do so far, far, far less often than they drive or are driven around.

2 hours ago, chspeed said:

I thought the premise here is that this was available and would work as expected. If this is a technical feasibility thread, that's something else.

It's still the real world. A device that works 99% of the time is unacceptably bad. "As expected" is not going to be 99.999% of the time with virtually no false negatives.

2 hours ago, chspeed said:

If it's a discussion about rights (or liberty, or whatever term we chose) of an individual vs. society, then the comparison of seat belts to this technology is apt.

No, it's not. One such reason why that's a poor analogy: choosing not to wear a seat belt doesn't brick your car. It doesn't stop you from going anywhere. You don't have to click your seat belt properly in order to go somewhere, physically, in your car.

2 hours ago, chspeed said:

I can tell you that 61% of motor vehicle deaths involve alcohol (real number).

I don't think that number is at all correct. I think it's under 30%.

2 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

As an aside I am sure you can wear gloves to keep your hands warm... just needing to remove them for the brief moment of testing.

Why should I have to? And you've done nothing to address false positives, false negatives, failure rates (again, 99% is NOWHERE near effective - there's a reason these devices are only installed in the cars of prior convicted drunk drivers - they've lost the right to have a car that is guaranteed to work all the time. I have not.)

14 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Up to this point the discussion has referred to "bricking" the car as meaning shutting it off while in the driving mode.

No, you're completely incorrect. It means rendering the car inoperable by failing the test. It means you cannot drive the car.

14 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

If you fail the test (before any tires are rolling) you are probably over the limit in terms of alcohol in your system.

No, it doesn't absolutely mean that. "Probably" had better be accurate to about 99.9999% certainty, or it's unacceptably high.

14 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

With all due respect it comes down to this:  Many of you are saying you'd rather people die than you personally having to give up a small right/convenience.

Uhm, no, it isn't saying that. At all.

14 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

I do like this site and wish to continue posting on it so I hope this statement doesn't get me banned.

That's one of the more ridiculous comments you've made.

I'll end with this, and point out that what we're doing is working pretty well, it appears, and that this is an unnecessarily HUGE step that annoys and costs EVERYONE:

Drunk Driving Fatalities

---

Though progress has been made, our commitment to eliminate drunk driving is stronger than ever. Visit us for facts and statistics on drunk driving fatalities.

Quote

Since 1982, drunk driving fatalities on our nation's roadways have decreased 48%, while total traffic fatalities have declined nearly 16%.  Among persons under 21, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 80%.

2 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

But as I've researched and shared info with the forum the IID will not brick the car.  And my bet would be the same with this new device.

You haven't shown that. If you fail the test, the car doesn't start.

That's unacceptable.

24 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

I think the device we are discussing will be a lot less intrusive.

Pure speculation. You’re assuming it will work too.

And by work I mean always. Without fail.

No interest in Arccos until I can get the belt clip thing.

7 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Guys hit in head with golf ball per year when standing too far forward of the tee: 10?

People KILLED as a result of drunk driving: 10,000!

Not an appropriate comparison. 

Sure it is. He was claiming special insight because he was personally affected.

And it was beside a green. Guy shanked it out of a bunker.

P.S. Many more drivers of cars than drivers of golf balls, too.

Also, 10,000/1,250,000.

Just now, Patch said:

I voted "yes". Didn't even give that vote a second thought. 

I am one of the very few on this forum that has first hand knowledge of the pain, and misery a drunk, or other wise impaired driver can cause. 

And I know a guy who lost sight in his eye when someone shanked a ball into him. Doesn’t mean I support laws requiring face masks for all golfers.

9 minutes ago, burr said:

I'm not the one ripping anybody, just pointing out the facts.  I'm not a drive by, I have a comment early in this discussion, it apparently was not prevalent as to have reply.  It was simple.  I joined this place since I was re-starting golf as a recreation after 16 years away to learn about new equipment and anything I might need to enjoy the game more.  I also am not one to comment on ever little issue that I might have opinion, seems to be plenty of that without my 2cents.  But believe me, I am here from time to time.  top of this forum states 'course management strategies to break 90' and I am in this particular point in my game.  OK?

sorry for the defensive attitude, I am not used to commenting back for such but ...

The bulk of my comment was fairly clearly, IMO, directed at @Hugh Jars. The purpose of the forum is to discuss ways to get better, not to just say "you're all a bunch of idiots" and then leave for another two weeks before swinging by to ignore everything else said in the meantime.

12 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

So how does someone qualify? Is it just score based?

For the advancement in the "post-season"? Yes. Natalie (my daughter) had to win her District tournament (36 holes, Thursday and Saturday) to move out of District X to regionals. She had to be in the top five out of ten players at regionals to move on to States.

WPIAL has their own system. I think you have to shoot a qualifying score to move out of WPIAL (basically their "district") to regionals, and then you're in the same regional tournament.

So this girl is choosing to play against boys, but gets to play from only 85% of the distance of the boys.

@burr, what does it say at the top of this forum?

https://thesandtrap.com/forums/forum/12-instruction-and-playing-tips/

Besides, the description you quoted is for the site, and it's not "talking golf" to just rip on people, not reply to the questions asked of you, drive-by comment, etc. as @Hugh Jars has done. If you're going to talk golf, then talk.