Jump to content

Pretzel

Moderator
  • Content Count

    3,196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by Pretzel

  1. Exactly what I meant. Most golfers play a majority of their rounds at a single course, which means their handicaps are built primarily off of scores from that one course. Those who are members at a course (for a men's club or a course membership) are especially likely to play that course more often than any others. It's almost certainly either confusion about average scores vs handicaps or it's a group of golfers who think they're better than they are. I've fallen into that trap before, it's easy to remember the good rounds and think that's the kind of golf you play on average. It's particularly easy to remember good rounds at other courses, because they stand out from just another round at the course you play most. This could lead golfers to thinking they're better at playing other courses compared to playing their home course.
  2. This is likely just because most people don't truly understand how the handicap system works. Your average score will be higher than the course rating plus your handicap index, because it's calculated from your best 10 scores. Outliers are exponentially more likely to be high scores rather than exceptionally low scores, which drags your average score higher than your index. Your index will be lower than even your median score, because it's actually slightly lower than the mean of your best 10 while the median would be your 10th best. Besides that, if you all play your home course regularly your handicap will be generated primarily from scores at that home course anyways. If the scores truly were consistently higher than handicaps would suggest, then your handicaps would simply rise to match the scores posted. The only time you'd ever potentially see a difference is if your handicap was created using scores from other courses, because if you primarily play a single course your handicap will stabilize towards the scores you achieve at that course. That said, as mentioned by others the ratings are strongly influenced by distance (too strongly, in my opinion). My handicap, when I last carried one, was lower than you might have guessed based on my scores simply because it was created in large part by playing courses that were in the 7,300-7,400 yard range. I didn't actually shoot under par often at all, but when shooting even par gives you a differential of between +2 and +3.5 you don't have to shoot under par to get a low handicap. I just had some personal thing where if I played shorter courses my scores would still be between one under and five over, so it's not like I was shooting 63's at easy courses ever.
  3. I'd definitely rather play, but I would hope I could at least warm up with a bucket of balls before the round and a couple chips or putts to check green speed. Not that I always do those things on my own depending on time, but it would stink to have to get a cold start to every round I play.
  4. I'd take option 1, ten out of ten times. The distance I hit the ball is much more consistent than my aim from left to right, and the same is true for at least most of the better golfers (and I'd wager most "normal" amateurs as well). For my 7-iron the vast majority of my shots will fly between 196-203 yards, with only outliers going further or shorter (mostly knockdown shots or punch shots going shorter, only severe wind conditions going further). The same trend applies to my other irons, where there's a clear "average" distance and then you can see most others being shorter (knockdowns and punch shots) with only a couple going further. The only place where it's not clear from my GameGolf data is in the wedges, simply because I don't make full swings with my wedges often enough to create a strong average distance (I almost always do knockdown shots with my wedges). That said, the margin for error of being only 2.5 yards left or right is very tiny. It's incredibly difficult to get the face angle that precise at 200 yards away, or even 100 yards away for that matter.
  5. On anything inside 3 feet I just stand over the ball or line to get an idea of which direction it's sloping, then give the ball a confident roll towards the hole now that the flagstick can stay in the hole. If it slopes slightly right, then I aim left edge. If it slopes slightly left, then I aim right edge. If it feels flat, then I aim for the center of the pin. If the green is breaking enough to have an obvious slope to it (without any optical illusions, that is) then I don't even bother measuring the slope with my feet and I just make the same assertive stroke aimed just outside the edge. Analyzing a 2-4 foot putt for 30+ seconds won't do you any good when the margin for error is huge now that the pin can stay in the hole. Just get an idea of the direction if it seems pretty flat, and otherwise aim at or just outside the edge. Since we can keep the pin in roll it with enough speed to go 3 feet past the hole and in the worst case where you whiffed the read the completely wrong way you can watch the ball as it rolls past to get a perfect read for the comebacker (hasn't happened to me yet, with good pace and a close putt it's REALLY hard to miss at least catching a piece of the hole). Practice your putting so you can consistently hit the starting line you're aiming for, and then just nail that starting line with less concern about speed when you roll those short putts on the course. If you have trouble with your starting line, find a straight 6-10' putt on the practice green and snap down a chalk line so you can start the ball at the same place each time and easily see if you're missing the starting line. If you are then you need to practice to be more consistent with the starting line, if you're rolling it on top of the chalk into the hole every time then your starting lines are good. Just don't overthink it, it's only a 2 foot putt. Pick center cup, left edge, or right edge based on what your feet say and stuff it into the flagstick.
  6. At first I was thinking golf clubs, but then I realized clothing would be more valuable because good blue jeans are too darn expensive. If I got them for free I wouldn't have to worry too much either about which jeans are my "work jeans" and which are my "nice jeans", plus I could just toss them in the washer and dryer whenever I wanted without a care in the world. With those things in mind I'd probably be replacing my sets of jeans 2-5x in a year which would add up to $800-2,000 just in blue jeans, not counting shirts, jackets, and other clothing items. I probably go through 10-15 shirts a year that get either holes or permanent stains from the various work I do while wearing them, plus 1-2 hoodies and my jackets never seem to last more than 1-2 years before the zippers are toast. For golf clubs realistically I'd get a new set of irons and wedges each year, but the issue is that I'd ideally like to have clubs from multiple manufacturers. Titleist would be the best brand for me using all of their clubs, but I'm partial to Mizuno irons and PING woods/drivers as it stand now anyways. Even still I'd be looking at a $1,200 iron set, $500 in wedges, and $500 in drivers per year or so just because replacing multiple times per year would be a hassle. If resale is allowed, though, then clothing becomes even more valuable. I'd just never wear anything I got from the manufacturer since the expensive stuff isn't what I generally would want to wear anyways.
  7. I'd go with course. I would enjoy the chance to play with a group of players like Tiger, Koepka, and Johnson (either one), but realistically I know that the experience would probably be a bit awkward. The odds of ending up at an extremely nice course are slim (since there are so few), so you'd most likely be playing a standard municipal course that makes up the majority of golf options in the US. At least the odds are in your favor of not having to play a completely garbage course. While it would be great fun to watch them tear up the course, I picture the experience realistically being somewhat awkward. You don't know them, they don't know you, but they do know each other so you'd probably feel a little like an outsider. Even just inserting your favorite player or two in a group with 2-3 of your buddies would have the same issue of there being a bridge between the pros and the joes simply based off who already knows who. Besides that, and most importantly, the opportunity to play with some of your favorite pros exists outside of this scenario. Every PGA tournament has a pro-am and you can usually just purchase a slot into it. You don't get to pick your pro but if you go with something like the Tournament of Champions pro-am you're pretty much guaranteed to get someone popular. It's expensive, yes, but it's an experience that money can buy (at least at a price point most people could realistically save over several years for a once in a lifetime event). What money can't buy is the opportunity to play some of the most exclusive courses in the world, at least not the kind of money that most people will ever possess. For Augusta specifically you either need the talent to play in the Masters or you need to be someone incredibly rich and/or influential (or know a member, someone who is incredibly rich and/or influential and could probably get you on at many other exclusive courses anyways). Employees do get the opportunity to play at Augusta National, if I'm not mistaken, but that would be something where you literally change the course of your whole life hoping to get to play at one golf course by working to get hired there - not the best move. I know Cypress Point is supposed to be harder to play than Augusta, but it doesn't have the same gravitas IMO.
  8. For me the answer is, hands down, the every putt inside 10 feet. I would virtually never fail to get up and down, making bogies much more difficult to come by, and I would make substantially more birdies. My tee shots are already a strength of my game and I rarely lose strokes off the tee (and often gain them), so the advantage I realistically gain from that is minimal at best. Making every putt inside 10 feet would save me a minimum of 2-3 strokes every round and more likely an average of 5-6 strokes per round.
  9. You don't get to pick and choose which scientific research you want to be true or not based on if it fits your personal opinion. The research definitively shows that there are physical changes in the structure of the brain when exposed to marijuana during development. There is currently no research on the long term effects of the changes in the brain from marijuana, because the ability to research marijuana legally (or at least in a legal grey area) hasn't been around anywhere near long enough to make those kinds of conclusions. It's like vaping in that we know it causes changes in the short term but we don't know what it will do in the long run yet.
  10. Good to know. My experience as a kid (8-10) when a trio of clinics were opened up near my parents' was that I had to go to the pediatricians rather than the GP's, and then after I turned 18 I was transferred to the GP's. Must have been clinic rules rather than general practices.
  11. My primary issue with it, personally, is that it is proven to change the brain chemistry of those who use it during the period in which their brain is still developing. This is all people under the age of 25 or so, which is a group that also includes most people who use marijuana heavily and regularly. The population that uses it the most is the same group that has their physical development altered by its use. If there were no permanent physical side-effects like that I wouldn't have any reservations at all. Even with those observed results I believe in legalization, but personally I avoid its use because I fall into the category of people whose brain development would be permanently altered. I believe those who decide to blindly believe there are no consequences to marijuana use despite evidence to the contrary are making unwise decisions. It's your choice if you want to permanently alter the structure of your brain. That doesn't mean it's a smart choice to make.
  12. The ball itself would serve to indicate a line though, which is prohibited for physical objects on the green even if they are removed before the stroke is made. I was mainly just providing an argument outside of the more obvious rule 1.2 answer if the committee for some reason didn't believe that to be an egregious breech of conduct worthy of a DQ, they could still apply a lesser penalty without having had to specifically mention that action in their own code of conduct with its own penalty.
  13. I numbered your points to make them easier to discuss in my post here, with my responses to each being similarly numbered. I fully agree with this, just because something is legal doesn't mean that private organizations should be required to allow employees to do that. It's perfectly legal for someone to get blackout drunk at a company party and jump off a roof, and it should remain perfectly legal for the company to discipline or fire that employee even though their actions weren't illegal. This is also true - once the acceptable limit for the substance is set (even if that limit is 0) it must be applied consistently across the board with anyone exceeding that limit receiving the same punishment. Grey areas will inevitably lead to crowd favorites getting light punishments, if any, and lesser known players receiving unfairly harsh penalties in comparison. It may not start that way, but its undeniable that suspension of crowd favorites like Tiger Woods would hurt revenue and the PGA Commissioner has a responsibility to protect the organization (which includes their financials). My only question on this is whether or not the PGA Tour allows TUEs for medical marijuana. I wouldn't be surprised if they prohibited them simply because of the fact that they are illegal on a federal level (could be seen as the organization endorsing federally illegal activities). This seemed a bit odd to me as well, either he's still seeing his pediatrician or he was somehow seeing a general practitioner since he was five (GP's often don't even take new patients below 16ish, much less actual children that are 5) WADA guidelines do show that marijuana is considered a performance enhancing drug, but honestly I think what is/isn't performance enhancing varies so much on a sport to sport basis that it's difficult to compile a universal list for all sports without overreach. In golf a wide variety can be performance enhancing since it's a game of physique and handling mental pressure, but something like a beta blocker would actively harm those competing in track/field events and anabolic steroids would do nothing or potentially even harm people in events like shotgun sports. I think the primary argument here should just be that the calming effects of cannabinoids can be a competitive advantage. It's a good question, and I would honestly like to see more research in the area of CBD vs CBD+THC. CBD would likely be an easier argument for a TUE because it is legal on the federal level, and if it can achieve the same outcomes it would provide less of a potential for an advantage over medical marijuana (you can't be stoned during your round to relieve pressure when using CBD). Any TUE granted for medical marijuana would almost certainly require an explanation of why CBD alone would be insufficient, such as having research data or a personal trial run of CBD to back up that argument.
  14. The rule in question to prohibit this would be Rule 23.5, which concerns a player's actions affection a partner's play. Specifically in section a it states, It would be pretty easy to argue that rule 10.2.b.2 prohibits this when it states: The golf ball is an object on the ground and specifically putting behind your partner would be using that object on the ground the show the line of play. It could also be considered to be a breech of rule 1.2 (a or b) depending on any code of conduct standards set by the committee and adopted as a local rule.
  15. Memorable Lucky Shots: Bladed a wedge shot out of a bunker on the last hole of a tournament, only to have it hit the flagstick and leave me a short tap-in to finish with a par Blocked a tee shot out to the right on a dogleg right Par 5, only to have the previously 10-15mph tailwind start gusting at ~30-40mph when I was swinging and the ball was in the hair. Because of the wind my ball cleared 330 yards of ESA hazard (would've had to drop at the front of the teebox or just re-tee if it went in), another 15 yards of bunker, and left me with 110 yards to the hole for my 2nd shot. During a playing lesson I holed out a wedge shot from about 75 yards out, but my instructor had video recorded the swing and was looking down when it went in. He joked I should do it again so that he could see and threw a 2nd ball down in front of me - I holed out that ball as well. Memorable Unlucky Shots: On a 220 yard par 3 I landed my tee shot inside the hole. It bounced out of the hole to about 20 feet away I have lipped out on potential hole in one shots a total of 5 times now, and hit the stick only a foot or two above the hole twice (they had potential since they would have spun back upon landing). I rolled the ball into the stick on a potential double eagle shot once in a tournament, but sadly it was moving too fast and bounced a couple feet away. I watched a squirrel steal my grandpa's golf ball and run up a tree with the ball in it's clutches, sadly the lost golf ball was a ProV1 Lost a golf ball in the middle of a fairway during a tournament once - all my playing partners and myself saw it land and stop in the fairway and none of us could find it when we got up to where the balls were
  16. Since there is some ambiguity, I'll describe the circumstances that would make me prefer one option over the other 2: CHIP Some obstacle is present along the path of a putt (sprinkler head, tree root, another ball, or something like a kidney bean shaped green where the putt couldn't make it to the hole without leaving the green again) Some kind of maintenance problem is present along the path of a putt (turf damage, heavy ball marks, poorly cut edge of the green that could deflect the ball unpredictably) Anything over 3 feet off the green or so Basically just any unusual conditions that would increase the chances of a putt bouncing off line by a large amount. If it's just flat/smooth fairway for less than 3 feet and then a well-maintained putting surface beyond that I won't chip because it has a worse result, on average, than putting. I should probably putt from longer distances off the green, but I haven't practiced it enough to feel comfortable with my distance control unless it's a very brief stint rolling on the fairway. SOMETHING ELSE If I'm up against the collar of the rough I'll use a bellied wedge to "putt" the ball without having interference from the rough. Sometimes I will experiment and use a bladed 3-iron or a 3-wood chip instead, but I'm mostly comfortable with a bellied wedge here since it pretty much perfectly skims over the rough. PUTT Anything not listed above, which includes almost every shot where the ball ends up on the fairway within 3 feet of the green.
  17. This was the impression I got whenever the Am Tour visited the courses I worked with/for. The first course I mentioned in my first comment here, where we hosted a tournament, is a course notorious for having awful pace of play. Reason being that marshals (myself included at that time) were banned by the owner of the course from asking players to skip a hole or allow the group behind them to play through. That combined with overserving beverage carts and a course branding as being "different" from other golf courses meant weekend rounds were usually 6 hour booze-cruises on golf carts. Despite all of that the Am Tour event still finished up in 4 hours flat and honestly caught our staff a little off-guard since the food wasn't prepared yet (we had planned for the usual 5+ hour rounds). In the other events it was the same story. Pace of play was good, and the events I saw always included a meal at the course. Regardless of the actual value of their points system, it does have a national points system all the same to allow you to compare yourself against golfers around the country - a perk not included even in stage golf association tournaments. I'd consider them as a higher end alternative to local club or even stage golf association tournaments for those who are somewhere in the 5-20 handicap range. For golfers better than a 5 handicap and certainly those better than scratch you might find more/better competition at the "official" events run by state associations or the USGA, but as far as the mid-high handicappers go I'd say these are a good option for "high-end" tournaments complete with rankings systems, meals, and guaranteed pace of play. The cost of them has also come down, as what I'm seeing shows a cost of $115-125 for 1 day events and $245 to the two 2-day events in Colorado this past year. Of course, I am slightly biased in saying that the state associations are better for low handicappers simply because the Colorado Golf Association does an excellent job with their events. They have online systems to handle every aspect of events from registration all the way to even include live online scoring, something that's really cool in my opinion. They put on 39 different championship events and/or qualifiers in a state with a limited golf season alongside another 32 non-championship events. They also, funny enough, include information on their website about all Golfweek Amateur Tour events in the state of Colorado.
  18. It's not even close really, we aren't anywhere near being able to do that yet because we don't even know how to measure how high someone is with blood draws and the most advanced testing possible. The problem is that you can't test for metabolites of THC because they remain in your system for weeks on end. It's because THC/metabolites are nice and soluble in lipids (fat), which means they store themselves away inside your fat reserves and don't rinse out as easy as the water-soluble alcohol. The other complicating factor is that current tests don't really tell you anything about how much of these metabolites are present in urine or saliva, they're just a strict yes/no because measuring the levels has never been necessary before (when it was still locally illegal). The only tests that can currently measure the quantities are blood draws, but then you can't go drawing blood at every traffic stop nor does the quantity of metabolites give you any real useful information. The information about quantities is useless because different people have WILDLY different perspectives when the same amount of metabolites are present, it's not like alcohol where there's a nice clean scale. Basically you have to rely on roadside sobriety tests at the moment, because police have no other methods of detecting impairment from marijuana. So now my car's malfunction will give police reason to pull me over, and I'd be willing to bet they'd also use it as probable cause to search your vehicle just because when you blew sober on the breathalyzer. Your car also now has a direct line to the police, meaning they have a direct line back to you. Grown adults don't need to have police constantly babysit them, and doing that won't solve any issues because it'll stretch police resources too thin to accomplish anything useful.
  19. Give it another 3-5 years and I might feel the same. Some tech within that umbrella is ready to go out and be a commercial success, but I've done enough work with some of the latest and greatest for machine learning algorithms to know I don't want it touching anything critical safety related just yet. Computer vision is something that many people have a pretty good handle on and there's fresh data coming in often enough that 1-3 missed detections aren't going to cause any noticeable affects. Machine learning is quite a bit more difficult and most practical applications using it are currently "stuck" in that 80-90% of the way there phase that's good enough to show real promise but not good enough to release to the public. Funny enough it's a lot easier to teach an AI to play a video game than it is to teach them to do something like control a temperature. It wasn't all that far off it turns out, the real number was 0.00029 compared to my estimate of 0.00039. The reason I said 3 trips per registered car on average is because while there are a lot of cars that sit (multiple cars for one driver, or the driver isn't using it that day) there are also plenty of cars that are moving all day possibly with multiple different drivers. Figured it probably averaged out somewhere in that 3-4 trips per car range and it looks like that's correct (since 4 trips per car would give a probability of 0.00028. 4 trips per car per day would've been the best guess it seems.
  20. There are currently 270,000,000 vehicles registered in the US currently. Using a conservative estimate of 3 drives/car/day (averaging out to slightly more than each car commuting to and from work each day) that would be 760,000,000 drives each day, of which only 300,000 have a drunk driver. In other words, the probability of any given drive having a drunk driver is 0.00039 - directly in line with the estimate made by @DeadMan.
  21. I'd go with this system over either of those. I have seen automatic braking systems malfunction before and it turns catastrophic in an instant. The incredibly unfortunate part is that automatic braking systems also have a disturbingly high number of ways they can be fooled. The two I have seen personally were leaves covering up the sensor (slammed the brakes on someone in town and caused a collision) and bugs from I-70 covering the sensor (the car locked up and the brakes remained engaged until the sensor covering could be cleaned). As far as GPS-enforced speed limits, this also introduces danger on the roads. It prevents drivers from making effective evasive maneuvers when driving at the speed limit. Malfunctions for this system would also be incredibly dangerous, considering the number one cause of traffic accidents is a differential in speed between the two cars that collided. If one car is limited to 10mph under the speed limit because their GPS glitched out then they just became a sitting duck on the road, though not as bad as the automatic braking malfunction. I'm fine with mandatory safety measures that don't risk lives compared to the alternative of not having them, such as seat belts and air bags. If those fail you may die, but if they fail you are no worse off than you would have been if the safety measures were never installed. I draw the line at mandatory safety measures that will actively risk your safety or life when they fail. Automatic braking systems that will slam the brakes in highway traffic. GPS-enforced speed limits that can hamper evasive maneuvers and cause the same symptoms as automatic braking system failures (if an error displays a limit lower than the true limit). And yes, mandatory BAC interlock devices for law-abiding citizens that can leave them stranded and stuck with a very costly repair bill in the best case scenario and death in the worst case scenario. If we want to talk about personal anecdotes about why it's incredibly important to be able to start you vehicle at any time, I've got the perfect example of how this can risk lives in real scenarios that actually happen. When I was 17 I took the bus with my friends down to the annual Denver Avalanche game and we hung out at the 16th Street Mall afterwards until we caught the last bus back to where our cars were parked. Having parked in opposite corners we parted ways getting off the bus and went to our cars, my friends having no issues driving home. I, on the other hand, had some trouble with starting my vehicle. You see that year the temperature was 15 degrees below zero and my car was an old (1979) Mercedes 240D diesel. Diesel engines don't particularly like the cold, so I cycled the glow plugs several times before trying to start. No dice, so I repeated that. This went on until my car battery died at around 2 AM, and the worst part of it was that stupidly I was only wearing jeans, a t-shirt, and a sweatshirt with no jacket or coat. The buses had finished their schedules and the park and ride was empty (I was the last car) in the middle of nowhere without areas I could take shelter nearby. I was lucky to have a mylar blanket and a comforter in the trunk of my car that I kept there only because my Grandpa insisted I'd need them if I was ever stranded in the cold. I wasn't able to get assistance at my location until 5:30 that morning because it was located in the mountain, a lovely cell phone dead zone. 3.5 hours spent in -15 degree weather with only jeans and a sweatshirt. Even sitting in my car without exposure to wind I would have risked frostbite in 30 minutes or less, and that temperature presents a high risk of hypothermia even with proper winter clothing. While wearing winter clothing at that temperature you'll lose one degree of core body temperature about every 30 minutes, sooner if you have no hat. Below 95 degrees (2 hours) is the beginning of hypothermia, below 93 degrees (3 hours) is when amnesia sets in. Profound hypothermia is 90 degrees (4.5 hours) and you'll find yourself no longer even shivering to keep warm. At 86 degrees (6.5 hours) your heart starts to pump arrhythmically. At 85 degrees (7 hours) you'll rip off your clothes for your final minutes of life. Those times are for proper winter clothing. When an ignition interlock device fails, it WILL kill people in the mountains every single year. People who went camping, skiing, hiking, or hunting and get back to their car in the evening only to have it refuse to start. Cell service is sparse at best in these areas, meaning only those prepared with extra blankets/gear and the ability to start fires will survive through the night without heat from their vehicle. I say when, not if, because the failure rate will be above 0%. 15 million new cars are sold each year, and if the failure rate is 0.01% annually then you'd see 1,500 failures in the first year, growing by another 1,500 every year and providing 1,500 more opportunities to kill in either what was described or other scenarios. This is exactly why using emotional arguments is dumb, because realistically the number of deaths would be small but a personal anecdote carries additional weight. The point is that any deaths that directly result from a safety device are unacceptable even if that safety device may save lives in other circumstances. Trading lives of innocent and law-abiding citizens because of a small number of criminals is morally reprehensible on every level.
  22. FWIW the TSA is absolute garbage that literally can't do their job even in their own tests. 'Disturbing' undercover probe found TSA screeners missing many test weapons A Congressional committee chairman said a classified briefing on vulnerabilities in airport security was "disturbing." They fail to find 95% of weapons, which makes your argument in favor of this using the TSA as an example even more ridiculous. It's like saying we should go over Niagara Falls in a barrel by pointing to Annie Edson Taylor and ignoring all the times that it doesn't work. The only thing disgraceful here is the spouting of outright lies about the leading causes of death. Your claimed statistics are patently untrue, and yet you think the facts of the situation are somehow disgraceful? The facts don't care how you feel, but they do guide people towards the most effective course of action in every scenario. Preventable causes of death - Wikipedia Among preventable causes of death all traffic accidents are ranked 7th and make up only 1.8% of total deaths in the US annually. Among all causes of death globally road traffic accidents are only ranked 19th.
  23. This is vastly different from a turn signal. This is a device that will do several things: Increase the price of all cars manufactured with it Introduce an extra critical failure point that will literally brick your car if it breaks, with guaranteed costly repairs (car electronics are never cheap) Introduce the possibility that your car won't work because it thinks you're drunk when you aren't - dangerous in a number of different circumstances Possibly prevent you from wearing gloves while driving if it requires contact with skin Possibly cut ignition to your vehicle and cause accidents if it malfunctions while driving - dangerous in a number of different circumstances All of those are much larger issues than having to lift your finger an inch or two off the steering wheel to press the turn signal stalk. It still wouldn't even necessarily save lives either, because drunk drivers can still drive any car that doesn't have a device installed - of which tens of millions exist in the United States alone. It would impact less than 10% of vehicles on the road and impact less than 0.33% of deaths in the US each year, but it would add major concerns and hassles to the lives of every single person who wants to purchase a new vehicle.
  24. Not all laws affect even law-abiding citizens though. The majority of them don't do anything to inconvenience or endanger those that follow the law in any way throughout their daily lives. Laws against murder, for example, have no effect at all on the daily lives of citizens who don't have a desire to kill.
  25. You literally did it again, right here. You told me that I couldn't possibly understand something until I am older, an entirely arbitrary judgement you're applying to me based solely on age despite the fact that my expertise in this realm (biomedical technology) is likely greater than yours. I won't make definitive claims of knowing more than you because I don't know enough about you to make sweeping generalizations about that in the same way you do about age and wisdom. You're also not quite as as clever as you think when you bring up the whole, "living in Colorado" idea - it's a flimsy and transparent dig related to the legalization of marijuana and its popularity among younger people. There is literally no other reason to mention my home state in this kind of discussion. Just cut the crap and discuss the points without attempting to dismiss legitimate arguments simply because of who is making those arguments. Yes, some drunk drivers kill somebody before they get that first DUI. You know what also kills people? The inability to get to the hospital because their car won't start since their hands are cold or even covered in their own blood. The inability for a driver to start their car and stay warm in cold weather because there is insufficient circulation in their fingers to get a BAC reading. In the case of steering wheel sensors that would cut ignition once they sensed drinking that would be guaranteed to cause at least a few road accidents when the system inevitably fails and shuts someone's car down in the middle of a highway onramp. More importantly, why do you feel the need to legislate the actions of everyone in the country based on something that affects very few members of the population. In 2016 10,497 people died from alcohol related crashes (CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html#targetText=How big is the problem,involved an alcohol-impaired driver.) This is a tragic number to be sure, but it represents 0.003246% of the US population. To put this in perspective, in 2016 there were 80,058 deaths related to diabetes. If you believe that drunk driving is a large enough problem to subject every law abiding citizen to an unnecessary burden every day to "solve" it, do you also believe that we should all be required to check our blood sugar before being allowed to buy a soda? Heart disease killed 635,260 that same year, should we have laws restricting the maximum weight allowed by the government for a citizen? I've shown that it won't stop people from driving drunk, because it's still very possible for drunk drivers to get onto the roads. I've also shown that this type of technology can lead to additional deaths rather than simply preventing them, so the argument of, "if even one life is saved" goes straight out the window. The only question left to ask is why should all 350+ million citizens of the US be subject to a law that could potentially risk their own lives because of what is essentially a rounding error in the more than 2,750,000 people who die each year? It sounds callous, I understand, but the truth of the matter is that drunk driving is realistically a rather infrequent problem after the large campaigns of the late 1900's to change the social culture surrounding driving while drunk.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...