Ryan Dunn (Jackass) RIP

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

I'd agree, he's a big lad also. For example, I was stopped after having two pints in Dukes a few weeks ago. Random stopo and breath test. It cam up as 11 m/g (you are allowed 35) but I'm a big lad and I'd been there 2 hours.

I would imagine he'd have passed assuming the above is true.

Same story. Two hours, two pints of Kronie, I blew 16/35. Also a big lad and fairly regular drinker. Some people around here don't seem to think that makes a difference are acting as though the same amount of alcohol puts you the same amount over the limit no matter what your size and tolerance. Fucking tards.

Ok - lets keep this simple.
Ignore the booze,even given that medical experts reckon it slows your response time.
He was doing 110mph,which is far too fast, and killed another human being.
Remind me again who the 'fucking tard' is here?

 

[SWP's back]

I'd agree, he's a big lad also. For example, I was stopped after having two pints in Dukes a few weeks ago. Random stopo and breath test. It cam up as 11 m/g (you are allowed 35) but I'm a big lad and I'd been there 2 hours.

I would imagine he'd have passed assuming the above is true.

Same story. Two hours, two pints of Kronie, I blew 16/35. Also a big lad and fairly regular drinker. Some people around here don't seem to think that makes a difference are acting as though the same amount of alcohol puts you the same amount over the limit no matter what your size and tolerance. Fucking tards.

Unlike you to lose your cool but I agree with the above.

Dunn was no doubt irresponsible and reckless with his speed (the Porche flew 40 yards into the wood), but labelling him drunk and saying he deserved it is ridiculous without proof of intoxication.

 

[Skashion]

Ok - lets keep this simple.
Ignore the booze,even given that medical experts reckon it slows your response time.
He was doing 110mph,which is far too fast, and killed another human being.
Remind me again who the 'fucking tard' is here?

Might have been in the Borkenstein dip region. You don't know. You can't claim he was drunk. You have zero evidence. Only evidence that he'd been drinking.

I often speed, if I was in Germany though, I wouldn't be speeding. I've made it clear umpteen times that I have zero respect for the law. If you followed the law blindly you'd be schizo. Good joke about that about the House of Parliament starting the century as being anti-buggery and pro-hunting and ending as anti-hunting pro-buggery. I live life by my own set of morals. The type where homosexuality and being Jewish and atheist would always have been ok. I think an arbitrary speed limit is wrong. There's no context. Sometimes the same speed can be dangerous or not depending on factors. I'd just have dangerous driving as a law rather than a speed. 110mph might not have been too fast. I don't know the specifics. If he was taking a blind bend at that speed, yes, idiot. If he was on a four lane straight bit of motorway, no.

If I got into a car with someone I knew was a speeder, I'd accept the consequences. I like to be driven fast. I know a few fast drivers. I get into the car accepting there's more of a risk. If he'd hit another car I'd definitely understand the level of anger you're exhibiting.

He may well have been a fucking tard. I've yet to form a judgement as I do not have all the facts to hand. People who think that an amount of alcohol instantly puts you over the limit though, they're tards. The same amount affects people differently, very differently. There's many factors which affect it. I also get a bit irritated on this subject by people who say they never drive after a drink but almost everybody drives after they've been awake fifteen hours. If you drive back after a night match at Eastlands you're more dangerous, than someone who's very awake but had a pint. Eighteen hours, you're as bad as someone on the limit. So you're up at six and don't arrive back after a night match until 12... It's a subject that doesn't seem to get as much coverage as drinking, for fairly obvious reasons, but it's just as dangerous.

 

[GStar]

Might have been in the Borkenstein dip region. You don't know. You can't claim he was drunk. You have zero evidence. Only evidence that he'd been drinking.

I often speed, if I was in Germany though, I wouldn't be speeding. I've made it clear umpteen times that I have zero respect for the law. If you followed the law blindly you'd be schizo. Good joke about that about the House of Parliament starting the century as being anti-buggery and pro-hunting and ending as anti-hunting pro-buggery. I live life by my own set of morals. The type where homosexuality and being Jewish and atheist would always have been ok. I think an arbitrary speed limit is wrong. There's no context. Sometimes the same speed can be dangerous or not depending on factors. I'd just have dangerous driving as a law rather than a speed. 110mph might not have been too fast. I don't know the specifics. If he was taking a blind bend at that speed, yes, idiot. If he was on a four lane straight bit of motorway, no.

If I got into a car with someone I knew was a speeder, I'd accept the consequences. I like to be driven fast. I know a few fast drivers. I get into the car accepting there's more of a risk. If he'd hit another car I'd definitely understand the level of anger you're exhibiting.

He may well have been a fucking tard. I've yet to form a judgement as I do not have all the facts to hand. People who think that an amount of alcohol instantly puts you over the limit though, they're tards. The same amount affects people differently, very differently. There's many factors which affect it. I also get a bit irritated on this subject by people who say they never drive after a drink but almost everybody drives after they've been awake fifteen hours. If you drive back after a night match at Eastlands you're more dangerous, than someone who's very awake but had a pint. Eighteen hours, you're as bad as someone on the limit. So you're up at six and don't arrive back after a night match until 12... It's a subject that doesn't seem to get as much coverage as drinking, for fairly obvious reasons, but it's just as dangerous.

I agree with some of what you say, but having a 'dangerous driving' law would be almost impossible to implement. There's so many variables that having a limit is the only sensible way to ensure that risk is lowered and managable.

You also can't say that bit in bold, in the same way Alcohol affects people differently, others wil have higher stamina and lower sleep needs.

There is a lot of judging going on in this thread though, and i agree we know nothing about what happened.

 

[BimboBob]

Might have been in the Borkenstein dip region. You don't know. You can't claim he was drunk. You have zero evidence. Only evidence that he'd been drinking.

I often speed, if I was in Germany though, I wouldn't be speeding. I've made it clear umpteen times that I have zero respect for the law. If you followed the law blindly you'd be schizo. Good joke about that about the House of Parliament starting the century as being anti-buggery and pro-hunting and ending as anti-hunting pro-buggery. I live life by my own set of morals. The type where homosexuality and being Jewish and atheist would always have been ok. I think an arbitrary speed limit is wrong. There's no context. Sometimes the same speed can be dangerous or not depending on factors. I'd just have dangerous driving as a law rather than a speed. 110mph might not have been too fast. I don't know the specifics. If he was taking a blind bend at that speed, yes, idiot. If he was on a four lane straight bit of motorway, no.

If I got into a car with someone I knew was a speeder, I'd accept the consequences. I like to be driven fast. I know a few fast drivers. I get into the car accepting there's more of a risk. If he'd hit another car I'd definitely understand the level of anger you're exhibiting.

He may well have been a fucking tard. I've yet to form a judgement as I do not have all the facts to hand. People who think that an amount of alcohol instantly puts you over the limit though, they're tards. The same amount affects people differently, very differently. There's many factors which affect it. I also get a bit irritated on this subject by people who say they never drive after a drink but almost everybody drives after they've been awake fifteen hours. If you drive back after a night match at Eastlands you're more dangerous, than someone who's very awake but had a pint. Eighteen hours, you're as bad as someone on the limit. So you're up at six and don't arrive back after a night match until 12... It's a subject that doesn't seem to get as much coverage as drinking, for fairly obvious reasons, but it's just as dangerous.

I agree with some of what you say, but having a 'dangerous driving' law would be almost impossible to implement. There's so many variables that having a limit is the only sensible way to ensure that risk is lowered and managable.

You also can't say that bit in bold, in the same way Alcohol affects people differently, others wil have higher stamina and lower sleep needs.

There is a lot of judging going on in this thread though, and i agree we know nothing about what happened.

Yes we do. He crashed his car at high speed whilst driving a mate somewhere.

 

[ono]

Posting pictures of himself on Twitter drinking and smoking a few hours before he drove his car into a tree proves what a massive twat he was.
I pity the loss of life and feel for his family but if you are going to drink and then drive like a **** then you get what you deserve.

That doesn't make sense. He didn't know he was going to crash into a tree.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Ok - lets keep this simple.
Ignore the booze,even given that medical experts reckon it slows your response time.
He was doing 110mph,which is far too fast, and killed another human being.
Remind me again who the 'fucking tard' is here?

Might have been in the Borkenstein dip region. You don't know. You can't claim he was drunk. You have zero evidence. Only evidence that he'd been drinking.

I often speed, if I was in Germany though, I wouldn't be speeding. I've made it clear umpteen times that I have zero respect for the law. If you followed the law blindly you'd be schizo. Good joke about that about the House of Parliament starting the century as being anti-buggery and pro-hunting and ending as anti-hunting pro-buggery. I live life by my own set of morals. The type where homosexuality and being Jewish and atheist would always have been ok. I think an arbitrary speed limit is wrong. There's no context. Sometimes the same speed can be dangerous or not depending on factors. I'd just have dangerous driving as a law rather than a speed. 110mph might not have been too fast. I don't know the specifics. If he was taking a blind bend at that speed, yes, idiot. If he was on a four lane straight bit of motorway, no.

If I got into a car with someone I knew was a speeder, I'd accept the consequences. I like to be driven fast. I know a few fast drivers. I get into the car accepting there's more of a risk. If he'd hit another car I'd definitely understand the level of anger you're exhibiting.

He may well have been a fucking tard. I've yet to form a judgement as I do not have all the facts to hand. People who think that an amount of alcohol instantly puts you over the limit though, they're tards. The same amount affects people differently, very differently. There's many factors which affect it. I also get a bit irritated on this subject by people who say they never drive after a drink but almost everybody drives after they've been awake fifteen hours. If you drive back after a night match at Eastlands you're more dangerous, than someone who's very awake but had a pint. Eighteen hours, you're as bad as someone on the limit. So you're up at six and don't arrive back after a night match until 12... It's a subject that doesn't seem to get as much coverage as drinking, for fairly obvious reasons, but it's just as dangerous.

You make some very valid points,although one could argue that if everybody employed an equally laissez faire and arbitrary attitude to which laws we choose to follow the inevitable upshot would be chaos and/or anarchy.
Morality is a different issue - on that I can happily go along with anything that doesn't harm someone else,and between two adults anything that is consensual.
I would personally argue that losing control of a vehicle at the speed alleged here is proof positive that said speed was excessive and unsafe,unless some mitigating circumstance prevailed,such as a blowout or oil on the road.
It would be nice to think that we live in a world where everyone acts responsibly,and has consideration for others.
Sadly,some cretin will invariably discard this moral compass and drive past his local infants school at seventy miles an hour regardless of any speed restriction in force.
As to driving after insufficient sleep,I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[adammck]

RIP Dunn & his passenger

 

[Ricster]

I'd agree, he's a big lad also. For example, I was stopped after having two pints in Dukes a few weeks ago. Random stopo and breath test. It cam up as 11 m/g (you are allowed 35) but I'm a big lad and I'd been there 2 hours.

I would imagine he'd have passed assuming the above is true.

Same story. Two hours, two pints of Kronie, I blew 16/35. Also a big lad and fairly regular drinker. Some people around here don't seem to think that makes a difference are acting as though the same amount of alcohol puts you the same amount over the limit no matter what your size and tolerance. Fucking tards.

Ok - lets keep this simple.
Ignore the booze,even given that medical experts reckon it slows your response time.
He was doing 110mph,which is far too fast, and killed another human being.
Remind me again who the 'fucking tard' is here?

I wish you'd make your mind up, it was the drink driving you had a problem with, but now that that has been shown to be incorrect to all those slating Dunn, you now have a pop at him for speeding?

I'll ask again, since my other post was deleted, have you ever drove at a speed that was breaking the law?

 

[GStar]

Yes we do. He crashed his car at high speed whilst driving a mate somewhere.

In the context of what people are saying, i know the figure 110mph has been banded about, but how would they know that so soon, measured the tyre marks, i don't know? Everyone seems to think it was because of drink, but that's debatable as we've seen already.

No doubt if you have a few and then drive a car at 110mph then you bring the consequences on yourself. But i'm sure every single person on here has made stupid decisions, they just weren't unlucky enough to end quite as badly.