Zero tolerance for drunk driving is CRAZY.

[Malibook]

Why SHOULDN"T it apply to everybody?

If enough people want it to apply to everybody, then it will be so.

Until then, it doesn't matter what you want.

If they do this, they should enforce it and make everybody pay for an inter-lock device.

The sober idiots who have had at-fault accidents are far more dangerous than someone who has a couple of drinks and has never caused an accident.

 

[tboy]

If enough people want it to apply to everybody, then it will be so.

Until then, it doesn't matter what you want.

If they do this, they should enforce it and make everybody pay for an inter-lock device.

The sober idiots who have had at-fault accidents are far more dangerous than someone who has a couple of drinks and has never caused an accident.

Ok, I was with you until your last line:

Someone who has had a couple of drinks and never had an accident is just plain LUCKY. IMO having a couple of drinks and driving is like playing russian roulette: sooner or later you'll hit a live chamber....I think the problem is if you don't have enough self control NOT to drink and drive at all, if you continually drive after a couple, sooner or later you might be tempted to do it after three or more (it's called pushing your luck)...then next thing you know you've got a soccer mom as a hood ornament and the baby carriage she was pushing stuck under your front wheels....

Is a drink THAT important to you?

 

[Angela@Mirage]

Ok, I was with you until your last line:

Someone who has had a couple of drinks and never had an accident is just plain LUCKY. IMO having a couple of drinks and driving is like playing russian roulette: sooner or later you'll hit a live chamber....I think the problem is if you don't have enough self control NOT to drink and drive at all, if you continually drive after a couple, sooner or later you might be tempted to do it after three or more (it's called pushing your luck)...then next thing you know you've got a soccer mom as a hood ornament and the baby carriage she was pushing stuck under your front wheels....

Is a drink THAT important to you?

I could not have said it better.

 

[a 1 player]

Hey if I want to blast through a school zone at 150 kph at 3:00 pm while wacked on on crack and meth while talking on the cell phone, nobody has the right to stop me. Anyone who tries to stop me is a fascist prick and is worse then Hitler and Pol Pot combined.


I got rights dammit.

You are an idiot, and obviously have no idea of what rights are and how they pertain to society. Here is a very brief lesson in civics.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

What is a law?

A written or understood rule that concerns behaviours and the appropriate consequences thereof. Laws are usually associated with mores.

Why do we have criminal laws?

Criminal law (also known as penal law) pertains to crimes and punishment. It thus regulates the definition of and penalties for offences found to have a sufficiently deleterious social impact. Investigating, apprehending, charging, and trying suspected offenders is regulated by the law of criminal procedure. The paradigm case of a crime lies in the proof, in the concept of beyond reasonable doubt, the judgement that a person is guilty of two things. First, the accused must commit an act which is deemed by society to be criminal, or actus reus (guilty act). Second, the accused must have the requisite malicious intent to do a criminal act, or mens rea (guilty mind). However for so called "strict liability" crimes, an actus reus is enough. Criminal systems of the civil law tradition distinguish between intention in the broad sense (dolus directus and dolus eventualis), and negligence. Negligence does not carry criminal responsibility unless a particular crime provides for its punishment.

 

[Malibook]

Is a drink THAT important to you?

No, it isn't.
I can easily go without and I often do.

Drinks do not affect everybody's driving skills equally, not to mention the greatly varying starting points.
Your assumption that everybody who drives after some drinks will eventually have more drinks and kill somebody is ludicrous.
Speak for yourself.

I still say that the greatest threats on the road are dangerous regardless of any drinks.
I would be all for a law that suspended the licence of anybody who causes an accident.
When you have an at-fault accident, you go right to the beginning and apply for your G1.

Why don't we bring back photo radar or better yet, just put speed limiters on all vehicles?

 

[nottyboi]

WE... do all that and alot more...

please define...'' minor misdemeanors'', in relation to driving after drinking??


.

Well, if one has a drink or two and is 0.089% blood alcohol, you go through the hell of DUI criminal record etc etc, if one is 0.079 you get a 24 hour, but really what risk are you imposing on society. MADD wants zero tolerence, and I disagree with that. I think 0.08 is ok, but is should NOT be a criminal charge, instead a suspension and substantial fine relative to ones income should be levied. Make 100K? $5000 fine, make 200K $10K fine, make over a 1M, $50K fine. etc etc. of course, cops get of scott free as always.

 

[tboy]

No, it isn't.
I can easily go without and I often do.

Drinks do not affect everybody's driving skills equally, not to mention the greatly varying starting points.
Your assumption that everybody who drives after some drinks will eventually have more drinks and kill somebody is ludicrous.
Speak for yourself.

I still say that the greatest threats on the road are dangerous regardless of any drinks.
I would be all for a law that suspended the licence of anybody who causes an accident.
When you have an at-fault accident, you go right to the beginning and apply for your G1.

Why don't we bring back photo radar or better yet, just put speed limiters on all vehicles?

Go back and read my post thoroughly, I specifically said "might be tempted" and it is human nature to push one's luck. Like I said: if you don't have the self control to not drink at all then why should you all of a sudden have some when it comes to one more for the road?

There is not one good solid reason to drink anything and drive. Sorry, just saying "because I want a drink" isn't a solid reason IMO.

And yes, there are really bad drivers out there that never seem to get caught. They too should be pulled off the road but we already have a process for that that seems to work (most of the time).

As for your "at fault accident". Hell, with the number of vehicles on the road it's a wonder there aren't 1000 a day instead of just a couple of hundred. I would agree if you write off a vehicle you lose your right to drive......

 

[fuji]

IMO having a couple of drinks and driving is like playing russian roulette

It depends on how long since you had the couple of drinks. The average male can metabolize a bottle of beer an hour so if you have two drinks and then wait two hours before driving you should be well under the limit.

If you have only one but then twenty minutes later you're driving you are a fucking idiot and should be charged with impaired driving.

It all depends on whether you've waited long enough. Rule of thumb is wait an hour per drink.

 

[a 1 player]

But I figured no, because who would be so utterly retarded to actually believe that

1: Anyone goes around smoking crack, driving 150 kph in a school zone while on the cell phone
and
2: That such a person would actually think it is their right to do so.

My guess is that you have never been to Oshawa.

 

[SandStorM]

No to drinking & driving

We all know driving can be dangerous.. for everyone at any age.
Why put yourself in danger and others too?

You know that Drinking DOES AFFECT YOUR ability to think , and react.. So you would be pretty stupid to get behind the wheel with even a sip ..

I say Zero Tolerance to Drinking and Driving is great ..

If those who drink and drive , think its ok to drive ... Guys if you dont care about your life, those who dont drink and drive do ..

Driving is dangerous but atleast we dont put ourself at obvious risks by drinking and driving.

 

[buttercup]

What I don't understand is, if a person is killed by a drunk driver, or if a person is killed by a driver who was on the cell phone ... what is the difference?

The person is just as dead.

Why, then, are there more severe punishments for the drunk driver?

The bottom line is YOU are responsible for the safe operation of your vehicle. IMO, if you injure someone while driving (regardless of whatever you impaired or distracted yourself with), you should be punished severely.

I believe in no victim, no crime. And I think that the drunk driving laws are really just another attempt at prohibition and morality legislation.

So, if you were in politics, you would make it the law that only those drunks who run into someone should be punished -- the other drunks, who don't hit someone, should go free?

The "crime" you are committing when you drive while over the limit (or commit any other safety violation) is that you are "subjecting the public to undue risk of harm". So, you are not innocent of "the crime", just because you didn't hit someone.

Often, the difference between hitting and missing is a matter of millimetres. We've all been in near-accident situations (not necess as a result of drinking) where our own error causes us to pass too close to another road user, and only pure luck kept the millimetres on the right side of zero. You cannot say the nature of the crime is different, just because you happened not to hit anyone, that time. The crime lies in endangering others by not paying proper attention to your driving.

But, I understand that mine is not a popular view, and that the remainder of society seems to be ruled by emotion rather than logic.

Your call for logic rather than emotion is misplaced: if lawmakers were indeed ruled by logic, rather than emotion, it would be the law (absent some proof of malicious intent, of course) that:-
- the punishment for actually hitting someone would be no different from the punishment for just missing them (i.e the punishment for just missing would be as heavy as the punishment for hitting);
- if you actually do hit someone, all that proves is that you were exposing the public to undue risk;
- "causing death by drunk driving" would not be a separate and differently-punished crime from "drunk driving".

But even the most logical lawmaker has to cater for the emotional public (typified by ig-88). In defiance of logic, they do tend to make the punishment fit the effects of the wrongful act, not the wrongful act itself.

 

[Capoeira]

I think every one of you will think differently when you or one of your family members
get hit by that teenage boy, driving his daddy's car after a couple of lagers.

The unfortunate fact of life is that many will have to suffer for the sins of a few.

 

[jwmorrice]

You are an idiot, and obviously have no idea of what rights are and how they pertain to society. Here is a very brief lesson in civics

Rayfinkle:

Please take note that I'm not so old that I didn't see the sarcasm! Hee-hee-hee!

jwm

 

[tboy]

As for buttercup's post:

The only thing I'd like to add is the fact that there ARE laws and punishments for near misses. It's called unsafe driving, reckless driving, improper lane change, there's a myriad of charges associated with near misses. The difference between a near miss sober, and a near miss impaired, is that when you're sober, your reactions are quicker so that you could have a near miss instead of a hit.

Just like that new racing law: just because one could speed 50 kph over the limit and never actually hit or kill anyone is irrelevant. It is the unnecessary risk that travelling that fast on a public road presents and therefore to reduce that risk, they fine and impound the vehicle.

 

[tboy]

It depends on how long since you had the couple of drinks. The average male can metabolize a bottle of beer an hour so if you have two drinks and then wait two hours before driving you should be well under the limit.

If you have only one but then twenty minutes later you're driving you are a fucking idiot and should be charged with impaired driving.

It all depends on whether you've waited long enough. Rule of thumb is wait an hour per drink.

Since you're so good at researching stats I shall leave it up to you but the problem with a "rule of thumb" is that it doesn't apply to everyone and there are those that think it applies to them yet it doesn't.

Just like your smoking argument: one drink affects someone's ability, so why put everyone at risk? (and by everyone I mean everyone on the road who doesn't have the CHOICE to drive on an alcohol free road whereas someone could have a CHOICE to work in a smoke or a smoke free environment).

 

[Angela@Mirage]

You are an idiot, and obviously have no idea of what rights are and how they pertain to society. Here is a very brief lesson in civics.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

What is a law?

A written or understood rule that concerns behaviours and the appropriate consequences thereof. Laws are usually associated with mores.

Why do we have criminal laws?

Criminal law (also known as penal law) pertains to crimes and punishment. It thus regulates the definition of and penalties for offences found to have a sufficiently deleterious social impact. Investigating, apprehending, charging, and trying suspected offenders is regulated by the law of criminal procedure. The paradigm case of a crime lies in the proof, in the concept of beyond reasonable doubt, the judgement that a person is guilty of two things. First, the accused must commit an act which is deemed by society to be criminal, or actus reus (guilty act). Second, the accused must have the requisite malicious intent to do a criminal act, or mens rea (guilty mind). However for so called "strict liability" crimes, an actus reus is enough. Criminal systems of the civil law tradition distinguish between intention in the broad sense (dolus directus and dolus eventualis), and negligence. Negligence does not carry criminal responsibility unless a particular crime provides for its punishment.

He probably lacks the IQ to comprehend your articulate response. That is why i kept mine so short.

 

[tboy]

Further to Fuji's "rule of thumb" according to this data, it could take 30 minutes for alcohol to be absorbed into the blood then an hour to eliminate it. So that's 1 1/2 hrs per drink or 30% longer than the "rule of thumb".

Some pretty interesting reading from this site:

http://www.forcon.ca/learning/alcohol.html

 

[Diode]

So tboy, you don't drink. Good for you. Makes for a far less interesting life, but to each their own.
I won't rant, that booze is part of most civilized life/society, and was discovered/invented by many different cultures.
I won't say that zero tollerence if a fools game, in need of many different gauges to define it.
Is it 2, 5 12, 24 48 hours from the last drink.
What if your tired?
What if sick?
What if stoned?


What I will say is that lack of skill, is what causes accidents.
Drunk, tired, wired, or ill...may contribute to a slow down in reactions, but I would suggest, that some people have driving ability beyond most of the public, even after consumeing a few drinks.

BAL is a dumb, but easy way of defining who is durnk.
Now.
What makes more sense to me is roadside skills testing.
Assume..if you will, that person A is in the skilled driving group.
If he can demonstrate that even after a few drinks, he is at or above the driving level of most of the driving population, has he really commited a crime?
No.
Now, as said before, I'm in the nearly 100,000km clube, per year for 20 years.
I, don't even like driving after one drink, as I like to be top of my game at all times when driving, due to the great numbers of dangerous, unskilled yet sober fools who think they know what they are doing.
But...skill is what matters most. NOT BAL

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

Diode, that is the best post in this thread. Thanks. ^^^

 

[fuji]

What I will say is that lack of skill, is what causes accidents.

Irrelevant. Skill is a factor that is tested for in the licensing process, so we are already weeding out the people who are not skilled enough to drive. If you want to say the licensing tests should be stricter than they are today I might well agree, but that is a DIFFERENT issue.

There is, independent of skill, a strong statistical correlation between drinking and car accidents.

What makes more sense to me is roadside skills testing.

Too subjective and not indicative of performance behind the wheel. Drivers likely get an adrenaline rush when confronted by the police that will improve their level of skill during the test beyond what it would have been behind the wheel.

Furthermore more than skill is impaired by alcohol, judgement is also impaired. How do you test someone's judgement at a roadside test? You can't.

Furthermore as pointed out skill has already been tested in the licensing process. If the level of skill required to pass the license is insufficient to ensure safety then what we need to be talking about is stricter licensing, not a relaxation of the laws on drunk driving.

If he can demonstrate that even after a few drinks, he is at or above the driving level of most of the driving population, has he really commited a crime?

Yes he has, and should be taken off the road and jailed.

He's going to demonstrate higher skill roadside than behind the wheel, and the roadside skill test isn't going to reveal how impaired his judgement is.

But...skill is what matters most. NOT BAL

Skill is already controlled elsehwere in the process, so by the time you get to the roadside stop it is BAL and not skill that is the important factor.

Those not skilled enough will have a different problem when pulled over--they will have to explain to the officer why they are driving without a license.