CANADA'S TOUGHEST IMPAIRED DRIVING PENALTIES START SEPT. 20

[ShaneA]

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_release ... 000887.htm

There should be no concern for any responsible driver, but it's good to see some stricter laws being enacted especially for repeat offenders. I'd be happy with a zero tolerance policy.

Safe driving out there everyone on this upcoming long weekend.

Shane

[manic29]

I guess 0.08 wasn't bringing in enough revenue so they roll it back to 0.05. In a few years 0.05 won't be bringing in dough so they'll drop it to 0.02 in the name of safety.
What a farce!

[RichD]

I guess 0.08 wasn't bringing in enough revenue so they roll it back to 0.05. In a few years 0.05 won't be bringing in dough so they'll drop it to 0.02 in the name of safety.
What a farce!

I nominate this post for the stupidest thing I've read on the internet this week. Are you actually advocating drunk driving?

Lets go over some numbers real quick. They aren't big numbers, you should be able to follow along:

- 1 in 3 deaths from car accidents are caused by impaired drivers.

- 1 in 5 of all deaths for people under 30 are from car accidents.

- Car accident deaths outnumber homicides overall. Do you advocate more lenient penalties for homicide, too?

These numbers used to be way higher. They've gone down due to impaired driving penalties and enforcement. You can observe the same pattern with seat belt laws.

http://www.thedrunkdrivingmasses.com/20 ... anada.html
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2 ... 48-eng.pdf
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-t ... nu-830.htm

[FalcoColumbarius]

Of course he's not advocating drunk driving. I advocate doing anything responsibly, but the new church of the land is in the name of safety and the environment and if you don't tow the party line then you are a dissident ~ .08 and you are not drunk. In those accidents where a driver was pissed out of his/her mind ~ s/he was well over .08 and it doesn't matter if the limit was .08 .02 or .000000000000068. This is much like C-68, because everybody knows that if Canada passes a gun registry law then all the criminals are going to hand in their illegal guns, right? What this means is generally good people are going to get fined for having dessert at Christmas Dinner and then driving home. Ultimately it will be better advised not to visit and just stay in your own little jar, like the talking heads in Futurama.
Seriously, do you like living in a great big day care?

What sort of reasoning is this?

Falco.

P.S.: "Statistics used for a cause can be likened to a lamppost to a drunk: Often used to prop things up rather than for enlightenment" (paraphrased) -Marshall McLuhan.

[fexlboi]

How do you know you are under or over .08 .02 or .000000000000068? You don't.
Way too many people on the road have a different perception of responsible driving. I don't want to cross someones way if he misjudged how drunk he really is. So there is just one pretty simple rule: DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE.

[manic29]

Are you actually advocating drunk driving?

Nope. Used to be that .08 was not drunk, so what changed? $

Lets go over some numbers real quick. They aren't big numbers, you should be able to follow along:
- 1 in 3 deaths from car accidents are caused by impaired drivers.

How impared? <.08 "impared"? Or >>.08 actually impared?
And we have a breathalyzer at work so I know what I blow after 1, 2, 3, and 4 beers. And no, I would not drive after 4 quick beers.

- 1 in 5 of all deaths for people under 30 are from car accidents.

What does that have to do with drinking and driving? Sounds more like lack of experience driving. How do the other 4 die?

- Car accident deaths outnumber homicides overall. Do you advocate more lenient penalties for homicide, too?

You should really google "fallacies" cause you just committed three.

Thanks Falco,
Yup, no more having a glass or two of wine with dinner and driving. "Think of the children!"
CGN

m29

[RichD]

What sort of reasoning is this?

Its called social responsibility.

[RichD]

Nope. Used to be that .08 was not drunk, so what changed? $

1) The research. There's more of it, its showing impairment at lower blood alcohol levels.
2) Fatalities went up. Last time that happened, we increased penalties and it went down.

How impared? <.08 "impared"? Or >>.08 actually impared?
And we have a breathalyzer at work so I know what I blow after 1, 2, 3, and 4 beers. And no, I would not drive after 4 quick beers.

You don't get it. I don't want you to be allowed to drive after ONE beer. I really don't care how high your tolerance is, and I certainly don't give a crap if you find the law inconvenient. Sit and spin for an hour while you metabolise and complain to your friends about impaired driving laws. See how popular that makes you.

- 1 in 5 of all deaths for people under 30 are from car accidents.

What does that have to do with drinking and driving? Sounds more like lack of experience driving. How do the other 4 die?

Infer... The most valuable resource in our society (young people, the ones with the most human capital to invest in our future) are most likely to die at the wheel of a car, and they are also in the highest risk group for impaired driving. This has a direct and tangible cost to society.


You cannot enjoy privileges that impose a cost upon society that is unreasonable to bear (e.g. DEATH.) Your argument is not only morally deficient, it is fatally irrational.

[konadog]

I'm all for stopping drunks on the road, but it's just paranoid to say that having a beer or a glass of wine with dinner and then driving is dangerous... The measure has to be the level of intoxication not just consumption. What's next - no driving for a week after a beer? Just saying.
Btw, do you ever change cd's while driving, or perhaps talk on your phone? - even hands free are a serious distraction...

[manic29]

You don't get it. I don't want you to be allowed to drive after ONE beer.

Yeah this is the same kind of argument idiots are using to ban RHD vehicles. "I don't care if RHD are less safe or not, ban them just to be sure."

You cannot enjoy privileges that impose a cost upon society that is unreasonable to bear (e.g. DEATH.) Your argument is not only morally deficient, it is fatally irrational.

Other causes of accidental deaths are falls, drowning, fires, and poisoning. I guess we better make it illegal for people to:
climb ladders or trees / sell buildings with roofs higher than 2 feet off the ground,
go on boats or near water / have baths / sell or supply water,
have heating in their homes / sell fuel or electricity, or
buy/sell any chemicals that might be poisonous.

Non-accidental deaths like respiratory disease and cancer result in many more deaths than car accidents, yet smoking has not been outlawed, dentists and doctors can still take x-rays, it's not illegal to live near high voltage powerlines, factories are still able to keep pumping out smoke, peanuts haven't been banned.

"If it saves just one life, it'll be worth it." The cry of the nanny statist.

[mararmeisto]

What sort of reasoning is this?

Its called social responsibility.

How about it being illegal to drive when you're tired? Surely there should be a law against that because people fall asleep at the wheel and crash and kill other people...
How about smoking in a car? That should be illegal too, 'cause people get distracted lighting their cigarette, flicking ash into the ashtray, picking up their dropped cigarette, flicking their cigarette out the window and starting fires along the side of the road... those are bad things, we should outlaw smoking as well...

Sorry, but I'm with Falco on this one: we are inching closer and closer to a nanny state, and I find it unsettling.

[kb&2dogs]

I want to say from the start, I enjoy a drink as much as the next person, but when I'm driving I can't drink, and I know that of myself.

Maybe .05 is too low, but maybe not, I'd be more for advocating tougher penalties when someone is caught driving drunk.

We seem to read more often these days about an accident or whatever where the driver has had multiple impaired charges, and yet they're still out there driving around. The problem being that even if someone loses their licence for impaired, it doesn't stop them from driving a car, they just aren't doing it legally, if they don't get caught, bonus. If they do get caught, they can go to court (after a year or so) and be all penitent (I've seen the error of my ways and I'm really really sorry!) I don't have solutions, but it really does make me shake my head.

I recall a conversation a number of years ago with an aquaintance who got pulled over the night before and got a 24 hour roadside suspension and he had to pay $94 bucks to get his car out of the impound lot. My immediate response was "you're lucky you're not in hospital or the morgue, or worse yet put someone else in either of those places".

Use the brain you were issued with, don't drink and drive and you won't have a problem!

[manic29]

I'm all for stopping drunks on the road, but it's just paranoid to say that having a beer or a glass of wine with dinner and then driving is dangerous... The measure has to be the level of intoxication not just consumption. What's next - no driving for a week after a beer? Just saying.
Btw, do you ever change cd's while driving, or perhaps talk on your phone? - even hands free are a serious distraction...

From one of the link above:

What is distracted driving and how common is it?
Distracted driving involves a diversion of attention from driving, because the driver is temporarily focusing on an object, person, task, or an event not related to driving, which reduces the driver's awareness, decision-making, and/or performance, leading to an increased risk of corrective actions, near-crashes, or crashes.
Distractions while driving are common, as documented in recent telephone surveys in Canada and the United States. For example, substantial proportions of the driving public in the U.S. admit that they engage in distracting activities.
More precisely:
81% talk with passengers
66% change radio or CD
49% eat or drink
26% make or take cell phone calls
24% deal with kids
12% read maps
8% perform personal grooming

So next on the ban list:
any conversations with passengers, or just to be safe, no passengers allowed
CD players
drive thrus
cell phones (hands free for now, complete ban in near future)
kids in car
maps or GPS units
biting your nails

[Mr. Flibble]

I suggest no arguing on the forum while you have imbibed beyond X amount of alcohol.

[FalcoColumbarius]

Be safe, stay at home. Why go outside when you can watch it all on high-def? We will take care of you and tell you how the world really is....
and remember, it's your duty to follow the rules.