Toronto Passions

Drinking and Driving

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,947
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
DayDreamer1 said:
so what would you suggest a sentence for a first time offender should be? (assuming no aggravating factors or injuries to anyone)
In my opinion jail time is not required. Losing the car, losing the license, and gaining a criminal record is a pretty severe penalty for most people. A suspended sentence is probably sufficient at that point.

Sending someone to jail for ANY length of time is a fairly severe step as it generally means they've automatically lost any employment they may have had, and that in and of itself may result in further criminal behavior.

I think jail time should be reserved for people who commit fairly serious crimes, repeat offenders, and so on. If you are going to commit someone to jail on a first offense the jail time ought to be served on weekends so that they can remain integrated in society, hold down a job, provide for their families, and so on.
 

Angela@Mirage

New member
Sep 13, 2006
1,064
1
0
DayDreamer1 said:
so what would you suggest a sentence for a first time offender should be? (assuming no aggravating factors or injuries to anyone)
Your liscence to be revoked indefinently. Drinking and driving is a preventable crime. I have zero sympathy for anyone who is pulled over for impaired. It sucks to be them. My family member's rights and life were taken away. That person is still living and has been given several DUIs since then. It is a slap in the face to my family and me. I hope I answered your question.
 
Last edited:

a 1 player

Smells like manly roses.
Feb 24, 2004
9,721
10
0
on your girlfriend
Angela@Mirage said:
Your liscence to be lost indefinently. Drinking and driving is a preventable crime. I have zero sympathy for anyone who is pulled over for impaired. It sucks to be them. My family member's rights and life were taken away. That person is still living and has been given several DUIs since then. It is a slap in the face to my family and me. I hope I answered your question.
and jail time.
 

Angela@Mirage

New member
Sep 13, 2006
1,064
1
0
DayDreamer1 said:
Not having a license will not prevent the person from gettin behind the wheel again, nor will giving him jail time...
I understand your argument. You have no idea how there are times when I would like to take the law in my own hands and give that sack of shit what he deserves. Then I stop and think; why waste my life on a worthless sack of shit who screwed his life up to no end. Karma is a bitch.
 

a 1 player

Smells like manly roses.
Feb 24, 2004
9,721
10
0
on your girlfriend
DayDreamer1 said:
Not having a license will not prevent the person from gettin behind the wheel again, nor will giving him jail time...
Longer jail time for the second offense. If a person is in jail, they cannot drive.

Another point. Impaired drivers are (for the most part) average people, not hardened criminals. An average person (I believe) would learn a very valuable lesson behind bars and not be likely to reoffend, especially if the second offense carried a much stiffer drink, (oops, sentence)..
 

Angela@Mirage

New member
Sep 13, 2006
1,064
1
0
a 1 player said:
Longer jail time for the second offense. If a person is in jail, they cannot drive.

Another point. Impaired drivers are (for the most part) average people, not hardened criminals. An average person (I believe) would learn a very valuable lesson behind bars and not be likely to reoffend, especially if the second offense carried a much stiffer drink, (oops, sentence)..
An average person with zero common sense.
 

coolcat

New member
Dec 29, 2007
614
0
0
Well, for the people who think jail time is too severe a penalty, how about this. Make each and every convicted drunk driver attend accident scenes where a drunk driver killed or severely injured someone and ruined those lives. Make them clean up the mess instead of the firemen, ambulance attendants, and cops. Why do they have to deal with an "AVOIDABLE MESS!!!!":mad:
 

CapitalGuy

New member
Mar 28, 2004
5,763
3
0
The very worst law's are made by people who have a personal interest in the issue at hand. Jail time for a first time DUI (assuming no crash/death) is a fine example of this, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the justice system, its aims, and how to recuperate a wrongdoing back into society, on the part of those who are proponents of it.
 

Hangman

The Ideal Terbite
Aug 6, 2003
5,593
2
0
www.fark.com
DayDreamer1 said:
The buddy can't just start the car, because in the middle of the trip and randomly at other points the driver will have to provide a sample or else the car will shut down.
And you want to put this in EVERY vehicle? That's overkill, and potentially dangerous for lots of other technical reasons. We can't be in the business of making it physically impossible to break the law. You set the laws and punish after. Where does it end otherwise?
 

needinit

New member
Jan 19, 2004
1,191
1
0
What they did in Australia worked and still works...That is the answer! (see previous post about this, probably around page 5).
 

pacerman

New member
Jan 20, 2005
12
0
0
I read about this procedure being used somewhere a few years ago.

As part of the penalty given to a person convicted of impaired driving make it mandatory that his or her vehicle(s) or that of any family member residing at the same address be required to "wear" a unique license plate given only to those convicted for a period of say five years. The cost should be paid by the owner of the vehicle. A similar unique identifier could also be required and attached to the driver's licence.

The unique licence plate would alert law enforcement to the past record of a person who might be driving that vehicle.

I realize that innocent spouses or other family members would be put into an embarrasing situation when driving a "flagged" automobile but that would be part of the equation. Hopefully law enforcement wouldn't go into a
state of harrassment but it might happen with some individuals.
 

Angela@Mirage

New member
Sep 13, 2006
1,064
1
0
coolcat said:
Well, for the people who think jail time is too severe a penalty, how about this. Make each and every convicted drunk driver attend accident scenes where a drunk driver killed or severely injured someone and ruined those lives. Make them clean up the mess instead of the firemen, ambulance attendants, and cops. Why do they have to deal with an "AVOIDABLE MESS!!!!":mad:
Then let them take a trip to the morgue and stare at the six year old who's life was taken away by the selfish acts of an impaired driver.
 

BuffNaked

Buff and I got's da stuff
Aug 16, 2003
480
0
0
Brampton
www.badonkafunk.com
pencilneckgeek2 said:
815 Canadians killed by drunk drivers in 2004, that's about one victim every 10.75 hours. That's ~2.23 Canadians killed by drunk drivers every day, approximately 15.63 slain every week, ~67.92 Canadians dead monthly by impaired drivers.


Yeah, I'd say it's a huge problem.

Source: TRIF Traffic Injury Research Foundation
find stats from the 70's up till now and you'll see a dramatic decrease in fatalities. If it's a huge problem now, what was it then?
 

spankingman

Well-known member
Dec 7, 2008
3,641
321
83
Easiest way is to throw them in jail for 6 months for a first time offender and impound the car Forget suspending a licence fines etc. Hit them HARD!!!!!!! If the moron is caught again UP the jail time.If caught a third time give a few YEARS in jail because the message isnt getting through!!!!!!

Doing time hopefully will make them see the light!!!!!!:mad:
 

coolcat

New member
Dec 29, 2007
614
0
0
In post #74(I believe) it says we should take them to the morgue and let them look at a six year old whose life was taken away. I think this is also a good idea.But I witnessed first-hand the aftermath of what a drunk driving accident looks like. There was 2 people in both cars.I saw a friend of mine who was still trapped inside his car that got t-boned by a drunk driver. He was 21 years old at the time. Although he lived, he was in the hospital for about a year. He clinically died 3 times in the first 48 hours after the accident.He was basically a vegetable afterwards who could not move or talk.He underwent several surgeries. He had to learn everything over again. He had to learn how to talk again, walk again, everything. He was never the same again. I saw the aftermath of the accident and what it looked like. And out of the 4 people, the "DRUNK" stumbled away with minor scratches and bruising. My buddy got the worst of it and I will never forget the image of him still trapped inside his car.And all because of somebody else's f#$%%#$ stupidity. As far as I am concerned, the penalties are nowhere near severe enough.:mad:
 

alexmst

New member
Dec 27, 2004
6,939
1
0
I can see if one has lost someone to a drunk driver one would be upset and want to stick it to drunk drivers. Just as if one lost a family member to smoking one might want to stick it to the cigarette companies. I get it, and I'm not holding it against you. Someone said "what about the old days" where there were more D&D accidents? I'll offer my observations on this:

Back in the day before I was old enough to drive, every adult in my extended family drank and drove on a regular basis - like every week. their adult friends all drank and drove as well. I know because they would brag about how they drove home sloshed to the eyeballs amnd had no trouble at all, which made them amazing drivers and good with liquor. It was alomost like a contest. None of my extended family members ever had an accident while driving drunk, nor, to my knowledge, did any of their friends. The Mungo Jerry song "In the Summertime" with its line "Have a drink, have a drive, go out and see what you can find" was popular. Drunk driving was not often seperated from normal traffic accidents as a statistic like it is now. Now they say "A drunk driver caused a crash" then they said "An accident happened".

My realtives in the 1960's were rear ended by what would now be called a drunk driver. The driver of the pickup had a half empty open whiskey bottle next to him and crushed the rear end of my relative's car. When he got out of the truck he couldn't walk a straight line or speak without slurring his words. The local sheriff came to investigate (rural highway) and looked at the bottle and said "Phil, have you been hitting the bottle again? You should go home and sleep it off - get in the front of my car and I'll drive you home". He apologized to my relatives, said the guy was a friend of his sister, and said Phil had insurance so not to worry about the damage and to avoid any 'unpleasantness' he'd just leave out the whiskey part from his report. He (Sheriff) threw the bottle down the embankment next to the road) and send a towtruck to get their car, and added "there was no whiskey bottle, 'kay?". Funny thing was my relatives didn't think there was anything wrong with that, and said Phil was lucky he had a friend in the police dept looking out for him. Everybody drinks and drives - accidents happen. The mentality towards driving drunk was totally different then than it is now.

When I got my DL, my classmates used to brag about how many they could put back and still drive home. One kid: "I was so out of it last week, I dodn't even remeber getting in my car and have no idea how I got home" which was met by laughter all around and cheers.

So yeah, the atmosphere is different now. I'm not opposed to it being the way it is now. I generally think drinking and driving should be discouraged, not encouraged like it was when I was growing up. I follow the 2 drink recommendation not out of fear of RIDE checks (which I don't encounter much) but because I see the rational behind limiting oneself for safety's sake. Only one time in my life did I have too many and drive - it was when I was in my 20's and I thought I was Ok and drove the mile and a half from the bar to my apartment - I noticed that my reaction time to braking was way less than normal and those extra couple of seconds needed to brake, while not noticable to other drivers (including the police car driving by me in the opposite direction), was sure noticeable to me - it was like I was moving with a time lag from thought to response. So I said then and there that I wouln't put myself in a position where my driving skills were hampered like that again, and I never did. That was my personal experience with the "reaction time" debate.

My beef is with the 2 drink limit guide. I wish their was a better way to measure the level of impaired. Maybe a breath analysis machine at bars one could blow into before leaving? I was annoyed no end last night over my cell phone mishap, and this would have been avoided with a breath analyizer in the bar. IF I blew a fail, or even a borderline, I could have left my car downtown and taken a cab home. As it was, I left my car at home becasue I thought I might be borderline later and didn't want to risk it, knowing their was no way to check when leaving the bar my exact condition. If there had been a way to check, I would have just checked and based my decision on the machine reading. Some people can be real world impaired with 1 drink, others can be fine with 4 drinks. It would be nice to be able to check easily.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts