I have no problem with what the police did in this case or the RIDE program. The police were doing what they were ordered to do. Problem is the law. When you make the penalties so high, criminalize people and advertise to people that DUI means your life is over, some people are gonna believe it and take huge risks when confronted. It can lead to a lot of carnage. A kid that did something stupid is dead, and very fortunately did not kill any cops or other people in the process. Kinda tragic...it amaze me so many people can be so blase about the death of a young man for doing something I would estimate 86% of the members of this forum have done.
Man Killed Avoiding RIDE Spotcheck
- Thread starter Kilgore Trout
- Start date
A lot more people are killed by drunk drivers, than killed by people fleeing RIDE stops!
I don't know where you got 86 percent from, I think that is a ludicrous claim. But since you like stats, here is one: People who drive after a SINGLE drink are SEVEN times more likely to cause a fatal accident than people with zero BAC. Legally drunk drivers are almost twice again as dangerous at thirteen times.
(A finding by the most fun to read researcher, Freakonomics author Stephen Levitt with Jack Porter, "How Dangerous are Drinking Drivers?", 2001)
Having a couple of drinks did no kill him, being a complete fucking idiot and running a police check stop at what was obviously a high rate of speed is what got him killed. I have a hard time believing 86% of posters here would run a police check stop.
did you read the paper or just a extract. Another quote from that same paper: "The great majority of alcohol-related driving fatalities occur to the
drinking drivers themselves and their passengers. Since these individuals
are likely to have willingly accepted the risks associated with their actions,
the role for public policy in preventing these deaths is unclear. "
Usually these stories end with an innocent person getting killed, so in this case it sad but atleast no innocent person died.
Kid made a choice and paid the ultimate price for it.
BTW the lamborghini is designed to come apart like that to save the passengers
Keep reading. Funny that you didn't quote the very next sentence.
They calculate the fine that punishes drunk drivers for the harm to others as about 10000 for being found drunk at a ride stop (inflation adjusted, they gave 8000 in 2001). However, I think we do have an interest in preventing people from killing their passengers as well.
In any case it is clear driving after even a single drink is risky. Should get a 5000 fine, from that article, for having non zero BAC but lower than criminal levels, per that article.
this was absolutely horrific to witness!!! i was out walking the doggie when i saw this happen, his poor parents.
I did read it I have no problem with the fine..but that is not the way our society sets fines. Fines are set at a deterrent level, not to compensate society. I would be happy with fines or community service of some sort. But criminalization is absurd especially for a first offense. Also, 13 x more likely to cause a fatal accident may sound HORRENDOUS, but really, you are talking about 13x of an extremely low probability to start with. When I read the study it looking like they are using the usual "alcohol related" stats with are not good data to start. So if you look at the number of fatal accidents in the USA, the average driver has a 0.02% probability of causing a fatal accident. So a driver over the legal limit will then have a 0.26% chance of causing a fatal accident. The there are the other factors. DUI is more likely to happen at night, and also more fatal accidents (drunk and sober) are up to 3x more likely to occur at night depending on who you believe. So if you take the 13/3, you get 0.086% vs 0.02%... stats can be skewed in a bunch of ways. I am not saying DUI should not be regulated, lets go with financial fines, community service and stop destroying people. When you really look at the stats its not as big a problem as its made out to be. If the DUI drivers keep killing themselves, we will have less DUI in due course.
No I think most will laugh at the dumb ass who killed himself instead of accepting a traffic ticket
Are u crazy?
Besides the obvious at least we clean up the gene pool since this 16 yr old can never reproduce now why in the world would you estimate 86% of people would engage a high speed pursuit?
I'd be willing to bet everything I own there are more people on this forum who have had licenses suspended than fled (actually I bet more have been in prison even than fled)
Another gem
The most common accident in ON is actually a head on collision (surprised me as I would assume rear end but its true)
Or do you think both cars involved are drinkers?
Public policy always prevents people from hurting or killing themselves
Suicide attempts are also illegal
If he was indeed 16. He would have been arrested and license suspended(indefinitely?). Fearing the consequences of his actions he panicked and did not think logically. He cut his life way too short. My condolences to his parents; and hope this be a lesson for other drivers. Thankfully, no one was injured. This could have been worse.
Here is a break down of his restrictions based on his age(and logically assuming he has a G1 or no license):
1. G1 drivers must have a “zero” blood alcohol level while driving – without exception.
2. G1 drivers must always drive with a licensed driver who has a minimum of four years of licensed driving experience in the passenger seat. The licensed driver must have a blood alcohol level below 0.05% – in case the G1 driver needs to be relieved.
3. The licensed driver (with minimum four years experience as noted above) must be the only other person in the front seat with the G1 driver – to ensure maximum concentration.
4. The number of passengers in the vehicle cannot exceed the number of functioning seat belts.
5. G1 licensed drivers must refrain from driving on 400-series highways.
6. G1 licensed drivers cannot drive between the hours of midnight and 5:00 am.
REST IN PEACE, this was a harsh lesson that you had to learn
Here is a break down of his restrictions based on his age(and logically assuming he has a G1 or no license):
1. G1 drivers must have a “zero” blood alcohol level while driving – without exception.
2. G1 drivers must always drive with a licensed driver who has a minimum of four years of licensed driving experience in the passenger seat. The licensed driver must have a blood alcohol level below 0.05% – in case the G1 driver needs to be relieved.
3. The licensed driver (with minimum four years experience as noted above) must be the only other person in the front seat with the G1 driver – to ensure maximum concentration.
4. The number of passengers in the vehicle cannot exceed the number of functioning seat belts.
5. G1 licensed drivers must refrain from driving on 400-series highways.
6. G1 licensed drivers cannot drive between the hours of midnight and 5:00 am.
REST IN PEACE, this was a harsh lesson that you had to learn
Out of all the people I know (and I know a lot of people) I think very few can say they haven't done it. If people on this board look around there close friends, or co-workers, I bet at least 25% of them do this. Look at city hall alone. Ana bailao pleaded guilty, Rob Ford admitted it (and was convicted already in the u.s) and there was Paul Ainslie who also I believe was accused of it. Those are just the ones we know about in a council of 45 people.
RIDE is a good idea but I think they have to come up with something else because drinking and driving is the single most complicated law in the province, as well as the one that gets broken the most. It's back logging the courts because they are getting so many of these cases. I read a statisitic that about 55,000 people a year get charged with a impaired/over 80. That's just the people that have been caught!! This is an epidemic in my opinion and we need to think about a better way of tackling this issue.
Where did the assumption he was only G1 come from? A 16 year old can certainly have a G2 as well (you require 8 months to pass test)
Sure, the calculation of the cost to society of a first offense is a Levitt thing, interesting, but I agree we prefer criminal deterrents. Interesting to know that it is 10k or so of external damage to society just when being pulled over by RIDE and when valuing the driver and passengers life at zero. I would not actually value them at zero btw, there is impact to family and the driver is responsible for passengers.
But clearly that data shows a huge cost from drunk driving, objectively measured. Your claim that it should not be criminal is ludicrous in light of these clearly measured facts!
What's interesting here is that a single drink is half as bad a being legally drunk, at seven times more likely to cause s fatal accident, blowing away the bullshit claim that there is some safe level of drunken driving. A single drink costs society on average about five grand every time detected at a ride stop! Again, assuming that the driver and passengers lives are worth nothing.
Plainly we should adopt a zero tolerance policy, making it illegal to drive with a non zero BAC, and imposing a non criminal but very steep fine on offenders between zero and the current legal limit.
Given that the measured cost is steep, in the ballpark of the cost of a car, seizure and forfeiture of the vehicle being driven seems like an appropriate fine for driving with a non zero BAC. Police could then auction it and refund to the perpetrator any proceeds above ten grand on the sale.
That level of penalty is fully supported by the data, and as you say, we prefer deterrents to compensating society.
Right now there are a lot of people who have bought in to the myth that there is some safe level of drunken driving, and since everyone thinks that they are exceptional, everyone thinks they are safe at a higher level of drunkenness than other people.
The result is a devastating carnage on our roads, with unacceptably high death rates. Drinking a single beer before driving makes you more dangerous than even a young male driver with a bad record! In fact, it is the propensity to drive drunk that makes young males so dangerous.
What we should do differently is eliminate the perception that it is EVER safe to drive after drinking. There should be non criminal fines, very steep ones, for being found driving with any non zero BAC. Forfeiture of vehicle might be a reasonable fine. A second minor offense should result in license revocation.
The other solution is improved transit and fewer people in single occupant vehicles. And in toronto, it is absurd that the subway shuts down before last call.
I saw a guy stop and reverse into oncoming traffic to take a side-street in order to avoid a RIDE check. As far as I know he got away, though cops had to have seen him causing a disruption up the hill as a bunch of cars swerved around him.
