Stefan Petzner, the new BZÖ leader, is trying to lay to rest all the conspiracy theories about Haider’s death. According to Reuters:
Austria’s Haider was over drink limit before crash- - - - - - - - -
VIENNA (Reuters) — Prominent Austrian far-right politician Joerg Haider was over the legal drinking limit when he died in a high-speed crash in his car at the weekend, a party official said Wednesday.
Haider, 58, was killed in the early hours of Saturday when the car he was driving at 142 kmh (88 mph), around twice the speed limit, crashed off a road in the southern province of Carinthia, where he served as governor.
“It is correct that… Joerg Haider was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. I can, and must, confirm that,” said Stefan Petzner, the new, 27-year-old leader of Haider’s Alliance for Austria’s Future party.
Austrian media reported that the amount of alcohol in Haider’s blood was nearly four times the legal limit.
Petzner, who had been Haider’s spokesman, urged the media to stop speculating over the circumstances of his mentor’s death.
“Press the ‘stop’ button right now and end the coverage of the accident,” he said, pointing out that no one else was injured in the crash. “Joerg Haider has paid the greatest price possible: his life.”
Hat tip: Henrik.
14 comments:
I am now convinced, thank you Baron.
This is sad but also strangely reconforting.
But wait, he wad drunk driving to his 90 years old momma birthday? Hmm...
I am convinced though, 80%. It is enough for me.
Well, we're lucky he didn't kill/injure some innocent person.
And the whole thing seems so stupid: his party had just made gains in the elections, so obviously that would be a good thing for him, and then he just throws that all away. It's just so pointless.
But wait, he wad drunk driving to his 90 years old momma birthday?
Yeah. He was known for a certain, ahem, lack of discipline in his life. He liked partying (not the 'coke' sort), and liked drinking. Nothing out of character here, unfortunately.
1.8 promille (legal limit in Austria is 0.5) is rather heavy. He was piss-drunk, honestly. I can understand that he reacts sluggishly at 142 km/h. Cars are, well, quite unforgiving in that situation. There are computer simulators that let you experience that pattern of reaction, so you can experience the trouble while being absolutely sober. It's rather frustrating to be so out of control, and quite a learning experience.
It's absolutely irresponsible to drive in a state like that. Looks like he got what he deserved.
I hadn't realised he had that reputation. That is terrible he was driving like that--as I said before, at least he didn't kill any innocent people.
Does anybody know exactly how drunk he was? What I mean is that "1.8 promille" doesn't exactly mean much to me. What would that be by American standards?
Promille is parts per thousand I believe, which works out at 0.18% by volume or approximately teice the legal limit in the US.
Yes, parts per thousand is correct.
We had a somewhat similar case in Denmark where the then-leader of the Conservative party, Hans Engell, hit a concrete block with his car and called for assistance. As a matter of routine, they send a police car when a top politician does that, just to check for any sort of trouble.
They met some unexpected trouble, in that Engell was obviously intoxicated. The blood sample returned 1.42 promille (Danish legal limit is also 0.5), and there was quite a scandal, which ultimately (much in-fighting later) ended with him leaving politics.
Engell also had a known problem with drinking a bit too much before driving - but who in a political party will stand up to his boss and tell him that it's a problem? Takes some guts to do so.
I am still suspicious. The timing is just too convenient. Who knows what really happened?
Can't help of thinking of the now famous case of Di and Dodi. Their driver was also supposedly dead drunk and I smelled a rat back then as I do now.
Thanks Graham and Henrik.
What I found odd about this whole thing is how long it took for this to come out. I'm not saying I'm believing in any conspiracy theories, but I just still think it's strange.
Well, thank you Henrik.
Those 80% of probability of the accident, just rose to 95%. It was indeed an accident.
I just do not understand why people go drive drunk. And he's not 18, he was 58 or something... I do not understand. I cannot say that he got what he disearved but, those who play with fire, usually get burned.
And if was indeed murdered, those 5% chance, congratulations to the murderers, it was the perfect kill.
It is a remarkable power of the human mind to attribute special significance to entirely random events. If haider had died a year from now, or a year earlier, it would still be a coincidence but we wouldn't attribute anything special to it.
Okay, I'll move on, but it's still significant that reasonable people would suspect foul play. Maybe because authorities routinely lie to us about everything, so why should we believe they're telling the truth about this. So, no one who was suspicious need be embarrassed; intelligent people have no reason to believe anything the authorities say.
Certainly it was only a matter of time before he was "declared"drunk,which only serves to heighten my suspicions.would you turn up to your aged mothers birthday party pissed out of your mind,there are still taboos concerning that kind of thing,further was he not driving a vw,air bags ,side impact bags ,anti-lock brakes and much more that the eussr has forced manufacturers to install in thier modern cars,and yet he died from"head injuries"?obviously these safety features are usless,i think that all accidents concerning similar models in the past year should be examined to see how many other casualties have been killed,which would give us a idea of how unusual this kind of"accident"is,for it can not be in vw's interest to sell dodgy cars or the peoples to meekly accept the word of our enemies that are in power.
Latté Island, it is indeed proper and reasonable that one looks with suspicion into events like this one. We need to check our authorities, or they will catch a habit of lying to us.
Then, when we have examined the evidence, seen that it appears coherent, noting that no hard evidence exists to the contrary, it is time to move on.
Conspiracism has become a huge waste of fine intellect in the US, not least by those pesky "9/11 Truth'ers", who just can't face up to the facts, and have too little knowledge of engineering to discriminate between hogwash and reason. I saw a couple of their 'documentaries' and declared them to be a gang of nutcases.
What we do need, and this is important, is public knowledge about how to evaluate information. Knowing how to quickly evaluate if something is credible, and how to investigate and confirm or reject the details presented. The Internet makes that possible at an unprecedented scale, yet the art seems to be in neglect.
Post a Comment