Page 2 of 16
Posted on December 12 at 1:46 a.m.
tabatha (at December 12, 2013 at 12:41 a.m.):
Actually, as combining the two would make the inconvenience for failing the breathalyzer test much more tolerable, perhaps a breathalyzer combined with a car with both self-driving and driver-operated capabilities could be a partial solution, though (assuming your suggestion was self-driving cars mandated for everyone; if not, only (2) below applies):
(1) Nitz's wife at December 11, 2013 at 10:41 p.m.suggests, in a way that suggests she has expertise in that area ( "The technology would have to improve well beyond where it is now for a starter-breathalyzer test to be used on every car."), that the technology for the former is not sufficiently advanced,
(2) We know the technology for the latter is, at least at this time, not sufficiently advanced and unproven in wide use (i.e. self-driving cars in wide use could create more problems than they solve),
(3) I suspect the cost, at least for the next five or ten years, would be prohibitive, and
(4) Though handy for a noxious daily commute, I suspect most people would not go for full-time self-driving, and would vehemently object, as I would, to this being mandated
On the other hand, mandating such vehicles as a penalty for first DUI convictions, which would have prevented this tragedy (and I assume statistics are available to determine what percentage of all), might make more sense than huge DUI legal penalties.
On DUI Hit-and-Run Victim Dies, Suspect Charged with Murder
Posted on December 12 at 1:15 a.m.
Though I might have preferred less than 12,618 words, the fact that my attempt to get some substantiation from the numerous claims, both here and at Noozhawk, that the Independent and/or Capps' office is LEGALLY responsible is so far fruitless, seems in line with what you expressed in that regard. (I don't dismiss MORALLY responsible, but as that is subjective, discussions would seem less likely to serve a useful purpose, or result in public policy improvements, assuming any are possible.)
Regarding your conclusion, or at least part of it: "This just sucks.": I — and perhaps others here — would prefer: "This sucks."; i.e. cannot anything be done to reduce future occurrences of these tragedies?
Posted on December 12 at 12:40 a.m.
Ken_Volok wrote:"I think their pain was evident enough..." in the post as to make actual relationship irrelevant."
It's difficult to assess tone in text material.
JMA's post at December 11, 2013 at 10:19 p.m....
"Why don't you idiots take a minute to stop arguing politics and agendas and realize that someone's daughter, sister, and friend has passed away. You all are so incredibly insensitive, it's mind blowing."
...could just as likely have come from someone who has no connection to Mallory. "You idiots" makes it particularly suspect to me.
Regardless, I didn't assert that the relationship was relevant; rather, only that knowing it would have made it easier to overlook the ad hominem attack and unfounded accusation directed at other participants here.
Posted on December 11 at 11:48 p.m.
Had JMA identified him or herself as a family member or close friend, I would have been much more likely to have overlooked the ad hominem attack ("idiots") and unfounded accusation ("incredibly insensitive") against other participants here.
Regardless, I regret that my response to JMA at December 11, 2013 at 10:28 p.m. did not more closely resemble Ken's directly above and, with all due respect to JMA: whatever sentiments you assume participants here lack not only do not require discussion, but many prefer to engage in privately anyhow, and considering that nothing anyone can write here can bring Mallory back, I fail to see what harm there is in discussions regarding what might be done to minimize future occurrences of similar tragedies.
Posted on December 11 at 11:02 p.m.
Ken_Volok wrote:"I don't think Lois Capps got her employee drunk, then set him out on the road to kill and maim with abandon."
Nor do I, but in the event Ken's comment was intended as a response to mine directly above at December 11, 2013 at 9:01 p.m., it's not relevant to my questions there.
Posted on December 11 at 10:53 p.m.
Nitz's wife wrote:"But no test is going to make all drivers safe."
Agreed, and brainstorming improved solutions for the most dangerous and correctable /preventable — drunk drivers — perhaps has the best likelihood of success.
I hope, regarding your daughter, "nearly run over" means as it sounds: escaped with little or no harm.
Thanks for the response regarding breathalyzer technology; I suspected so.
Posted on December 11 at 10:28 p.m.
Perhaps JMA might consider (1) that Mallory's CaringBridge page (posted at the second commet above) is a better place for him or her to be at this time, and/or (2) consider that people are capable of doing more than one thing at a time, and/or (3) clarify why he or she thinks he or she should determine, rather than the Santa Barbara Independent, via use of the 'Suggest removal' link at every comment, what people are allowed to discuss, in this or any other Independent comment section, especially considering that such comments do not violate the 'Independent Discussion Guidelines [ http://www.independent.com/discussion... ] posted at the top of every comment section.
Posted on December 11 at 9:01 p.m.
oh_snap_sb wrote:"Mallory's blood is equally on the Independent's hands as much as it is on Mr. Morua's."
I believe you're referring to moral liability, but regardless of whether you are referring to moral liability or legal liability, considering that the former is subjective I'm more curious about the latter, particularly from those with real legal knowledge in this area (which is not limited to attorneys). Unsubstantiated claims have been made of Capps' office legal liability as well as the Independent's.
I'm certainly not opposed to Capps' office being held legally liable, but regarding unsubstantiated claims: (1) I don't believe Morua can be assumed to have been representing Capps 100% of the time simply because he was employed by her office, and (2) I've not seen any substantiation that he was at that party for the specific purpose of representing her.
If I'm incorrect about (1) above, I'd like to see substantiation from someone legally knowledgeable, regarding Capps' office legal liability, and then, regarding (2), I'd be interested in substantiation that he was at the party specifically for the purpose of representing Capps.
Regardless of (2), and whether I'm correct or incorrect about (1), I'm curious about whether there might be a strong legal case against Capps' office, or the Independent, or both.
Posted on December 11 at 8:28 p.m.
Though law enforcement responds to easily detectable failures such as non-functioning headlights and taillights, law enforcement does not "monitor" the functionality of most auto safety features, such as airbags, antilock brakes, seat belts, etc., and so, setting aside that such legislation, assuming otherwise feasible, would not need to mandate this, why would you suggest it would likely be mandated?
Posted on December 11 at 8:05 p.m.
tabatha wrote:"I guess then air bags are stupid, too."
With all due respect, assuming the results of each startup test aren't electronically and secretly transmitted to the government (admittedly a big assumption these days), a car breathalyzer would not monitor, it only test.
The suggestions on the Noozhawk thread that I referenced were (1) limit bar alcohol consumption by everyone to x drinks per hour, and (2) implement this via a website that all bars would connect to.
Setting aside the practicality, I believe you and I would be in strong agreement that, given typical government incompetence, even a non-intentional breach of this data would have horrendous privacy implications.
Watch Jim Komo West perform the Hawaiian slack key guitar. Read More
Previous Month | Next Month