Zero tolerance for drunk driving is CRAZY.

[a 1 player]

<deleted post>

Fuck it, why do I even bother

To increase your post count?

 

[opieshuffle]

Actually...

It is a testament to the power of brainwashing that none of you would have the same wrath reserved for someone talking on their cellphone or texting of other modes of driver distration that are way more lethal than ONE OR TWO drinks behind the wheel.

Many people, myself included, think there should be ZERO TOLERANCE for anything that distracts drivers. I'll be one happy camper when cellphones, GPS devices, or anything else distracting drivers is banned. It snowed last night and 50% of the fucking population can't even be bothered to clean their cars aside from flicking on some wipers. And we expect these people to show good judgment when it comes to drinks consumed or their abilities to drive with gadgets?!

My solution? It needs to start with new drivers. Better training...longer training...re-testing every 5 years and zero tolerance for ANY kind of "distraction"...be it booze, gadgets or whatever! Gotta start with the kids and enforce the rules.

JMHO

Op

 

[fuji]

Crawl back under a bridge. Huh? Did I attack you? Is that necessary?

Because misquoting me makes you a troll

Let me repeat so you get it: The law is currently NOT at zero tolerance because the majority of people believe that one or two drinks under the legal limit is perfectly acceptable.

So do I. I'm just pointing out that to remain under legal limits with two drinks you have to wait a couple of hours, unless you have a breathalyzer of your own to test with.

One standard drink (an ounce of alcohol over an hour) will increase the average person's BAL to .05% so two in an hour will push you to roughly .1% which is over the limit. It's generally accepted that most people show signs of intoxication at .05% although the limit is higher than that.

If you have two drinks and then jump in your car you, and you're an average sized guy, you are going to be over the legal limit. You need to wait an hour to be legal, and two hours to be safe. If you have one drink odds are you're under the limit but you should wait an hour to be safe to drive.

As for texting what makes you think I'm not against that? There was a thread about that, and I was on that thread stating that I agreed with the zero tolerance for using hand-held devices behind the wheel. It's a documented fact that that is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than drunk driving.

So you're a troll who misquoted me above, and now you've assumed that I hold a view that I don't hold--trolls belong under bridges.

 

[S.C. Joe]

Fuck ZERO TOLERANCE on anything...the world is far from a perfect place. Why would anybody think driving would be any different? This is why the speed limits are lower than they could be, cause people are not perfect and make errors.

 

[Fritz96]

Either you or Madd is way off on the BAC level. This is from the Madd website.

"It isn’t a small amount of alcohol either -- to reach a .08 BAC level, a 170-pound man would have to drink approximately four drinks in one hour on an empty stomach or a 137-pound woman would have to drink approximately three drinks in one hour on an empty stomach."

If you have two drinks and then jump in your car you, and you're an average sized guy, you are going to be over the legal limit. You need to wait an hour to be legal, and two hours to be safe.

 

[Malibook]

Either you or Madd is way off on the BAC level. This is from the Madd website.

"It isn’t a small amount of alcohol either -- to reach a .08 BAC level, a 170-pound man would have to drink approximately four drinks in one hour on an empty stomach or a 137-pound woman would have to drink approximately three drinks in one hour on an empty stomach."

MADD exaggerates and is off a little.
Fuji is out to lunch.
Perhaps Fuji is impaired after one drink, or no drinks, but he should speak for himself.

 

[LAS0023]

I agree. If Fuji and TBoy can't drive after one drink, then they shouldn't. That doesn't mean it should be a criminal offense for someone to drive home after having a glass of wine with dinner.

MADD exaggerates and is off a little.
Fuji is out to lunch.
Perhaps Fuji is impaired after one drink, or no drinks, but he should speak for himself.

 

[fuji]

No-one on this thread has suggested a single drink is a problem, or if someone has it sure wasn't me. What's been said is if you knock back too drinks and hop in your car it's a problem. Depending on your weight you may or may not be over the limit at that point and in either case it's not safe.

Is it really so hard to chat for an hour before driving if you decide to have two glasses within an hour?

 

[Keebler Elf]

Which is why they call it impaired driving, one shouldn't drive while under the influence of ANYTHING that inhibits their ability to reason, react and in any way dulls their senses.

Impaired driving is a separate and distinct charge from the Over 80 mgs charge. You can be over the legal limit and not be impaired, and vice versa. You could have a sip of alcohol and if an officer believes you to be impaired, have fun in court.

 

[Keebler Elf]

The problem with MADD is that there's no counterbalance to them. No one is going to stand up and be perceived as supporting drinking and driving. So, as a result, we get a bunch of increasingly draconic laws put forward, more often than not, by people who have lost a loved one in an accident and who want their otherwise meaningless deaths to have a "purpose."

Unfortunately, I'm a strong proponent of not having emotionally invested people influencing our laws. It's not good for proper legislation and it's not good for society. Just like it's not good to make important decisions when you're in an emotional state of mind.

I think the vast majority of people who support impaired driving laws would be shocked to discover just how little alcohol puts them over the limit and would revisit their opinions if they knew the legal consequences of being over the legal limit by even the slightest amount.

Our impaired driving laws are marketed to be laws to get drunks off the road. In fact, you don't need to be anywhere near drunk to be convicted of a criminal offense... which goes far beyond a license suspension (again, what most people think they'll get).

Do you think your grandma should receive a criminal record because she had a glass of wine and is .001 over the legal limit? I don't. But there's no flexibility built into the system to treat such cases reasonably. Instead we have the reactionary, "Zero Tolerance!!!"

Not smart.

 

[Esco!]

The problem with MADD is that there's no counterbalance to them. No one is going to stand up and be perceived as supporting drinking and driving

Yes there is, they're called DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers)
I happen to be sitting President elect for the Toronto region

 

[rama putri]

Having a drink with friends at dinner and then driving is called "pleasure" and many of you motherfucking hypocrites do it all the time. Having more than a drink, or two, at most in a given period of time is horribly irresponsible and selfish.

People don't need a drink and then drive to have pleasure. Apparently you do. And if you choose to have a drink. Your choice. Don't drive. Certainly not for pleasure. If I choose to drink, even one drink I don't drive, at least not for a certain amount of time, what exactly is hypocritical about that? Many people do that. In fact many people plan it so that they don't need to drive after they drink. Betcha they're having pleasure. What's so hard about that? Have you visited AA yet?

 

[Esco!]

Have you visited AA yet?

I'm bringing Mao to my next AA meeting since he's still in denial about boozing.

He's also in denial about seeing prostitutes, (reverse)racism and general retarded stuff

 

[Diesel Jockey]

More appropriately.... boost the drinking age to 21 if it's that much of an issue. I do agree with it but why go half way. I don't have stats or numbers but I do know that a large portion of impaired charges, preventable collisions and deaths on the roads that involve alcohol, involve youth under 25.

I'm all for it but as I've implied, pointless if your really not going erradicate it.

 

[fuji]

So, as a result, we get a bunch of increasingly draconic laws put forward, more often than not, by people who have lost a loved one in an accident and who want their otherwise meaningless deaths to have a "purpose."

Good so then I speak with some authority since I have never lost anyone to drinking and driving, nor has anyone I know ever even been killed or seriously hurt in a car accident.

I think the vast majority of people who support impaired driving laws would be shocked to discover just how little alcohol puts them over the limit and would revisit their opinions if they knew the legal consequences of being over the legal limit by even the slightest amount.

I suspect you would be shocked at how little alcohol it takes to influence your decision making.

In fact, you don't need to be anywhere near drunk to be convicted of a criminal offense

You don't need to be anywhere near stumbling drunk to be a menace to other people.

Do you think your grandma should receive a criminal record because she had a glass of wine and is .001 over the legal limit?

Yes, because grandma knows the rules, and she knows that she should have waited before driving, and especially in the case more than likely grandma is exactly the sort of person who needs 100% of her faculties to drive safely.

I don't. But there's no flexibility built into the system to treat such cases reasonably.

Sure there's LOADS of flexibility built into the system. There is a LONG way between 0 and 0.08% and that entire gap is flexibility. If your goal is to be driving around at 0.0799% you have issues. Your goal should be to be driving around at no more than .04% or so and .08% lets you be wrong by double.

You should not be driving at .05% really but the law lets you get away with .08%, that is flexibility.

 

[Angela@Mirage]

Crawl back under a bridge. Huh? Did I attack you? Is that necessary?

I suspect you're somewhat emotional. I said "moderate" and you say "minimal" They are actually the same thing for the purposes of the argument.

Let me repeat so you get it: The law is currently NOT at zero tolerance because the majority of people believe that one or two drinks under the legal limit is perfectly acceptable. If it were not thus, the law would change almost instantly because of the power of MADD. That is fact.

Now if you're going to attack me personally, please feel free to go elsewhere, okay?

It is a testament to the power of brainwashing that none of you would have the same wrath reserved for someone talking on their cellphone or texting of other modes of driver distration that are way more lethal than ONE OR TWO drinks behind the wheel. Think about it before you attack me.

And isn't it interesting that Ontario is set to have a zero tolerance plan for gadgets behind the wheel but not alcohol. Hmmmmmm. I wonder why. Hmmmm.

Anyway, over and out. The hypocrisy of this thread is starting to get to me.

Fugi, you need to loosen your balloon knot a little. Have some respect.

 

[Jade4u]

I am totally undecided on this issue. Getting more funding into existing things if they work or not is not the way to go imho because that is just more money being spent on one more of many government funded programs and we all know they come back on us for the money in the end. As seeing a girl friend become paralyzed from the waist down in high school from a drunk driver and the impact it had on her life I am totally against drunk drivers and think anything to keep them off the roads to keep people safe is a good thing. On the other hand with all the things being banned and all the freedoms that are being lost I am thinking not another flipping ban. People do deserve to live while they are living. But then again not at the cost of another individual losing thier life or way of living.

 

[chiller_boy]

The problem with MADD is that there's no counterbalance to them. No one is going to stand up and be perceived as supporting drinking and driving. So, as a result, we get a bunch of increasingly draconic laws put forward, more often than not, by people who have lost a loved one in an accident and who want their otherwise meaningless deaths to have a "purpose."

Unfortunately, I'm a strong proponent of not having emotionally invested people influencing our laws. It's not good for proper legislation and it's not good for society. Just like it's not good to make important decisions when you're in an emotional state of mind.

I think the vast majority of people who support impaired driving laws would be shocked to discover just how little alcohol puts them over the limit and would revisit their opinions if they knew the legal consequences of being over the legal limit by even the slightest amount.

Our impaired driving laws are marketed to be laws to get drunks off the road. In fact, you don't need to be anywhere near drunk to be convicted of a criminal offense... which goes far beyond a license suspension (again, what most people think they'll get).

Do you think your grandma should receive a criminal record because she had a glass of wine and is .001 over the legal limit? I don't. But there's no flexibility built into the system to treat such cases reasonably. Instead we have the reactionary, "Zero Tolerance!!!"

Not smart.

Actually, there was a guy in Cclorado who ran on a platform of eliminating drunk driving ride checks. He went around to all the bars restaurants and taverns raising money for his campaign. I believe his idea was that police could only ticket someone who was driving erratically(and they didnt need to give a breathalyzer), but no spot checks.

He lost.

 

[tboy]

Impaired driving is a separate and distinct charge from the Over 80 mgs charge. You can be over the legal limit and not be impaired, and vice versa. You could have a sip of alcohol and if an officer believes you to be impaired, have fun in court.

Ummm, ok, if that is the case then why are they called R.I.D.E. spotchecks?

And just an FYI:

From the criminal code of Canada:

"Operation while impaired

253. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood."

If you'd like to read more:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:s_3_1-gb:s_21//en