New Drinking and Driving Laws (Ontario)
Is it just me or are these new drinking and driving laws pretty ridiculous:
Tough new drinking and driving laws in Ontario
So basically if you are going to consume any alcohol don't drive.
Tough new drinking and driving laws in Ontario
So basically if you are going to consume any alcohol don't drive.
Comments
This is a fcking joke. Get caught once, you lose your license just long enough to sober up, then toss back a few more and ZOOM, you're off again.
If caught with a similar level of booze in their system a second time, their licence will be suspended for seven days and the driver will have to attend an alcohol education program.
Whoo...ALCOHOL EDUCATION PROGRAM!
If caught a third time, the driver's licence will be suspended for 30 days, and the motorist will have to complete a remedial alcohol treatment program.
If at first you don't succeed, try try again!
Drivers caught a third time will also have an ignition interlock condition placed on their licence for six months.
Just bullshit.
It seems Graham thinks that the new laws are too stiff and JohnnieH believes that they're too soft.
The speed limit on 400 series highways is 100km/hr. However if we catch you driving over 80km/hr will give you a ticket.
The legal age for drinking is 19 years. However if we catch you drinking under the age of 21 we will write you a ticket for that too.
The legal limit for blood alcohol while operating a motor vehicle is 0.08. However if you are over 0.05 we will suspend your license.
Total fkn jopke
heh
The problem I have is that rather than patting themselves on the back for a job well done, they're looking to ruin the lives of people who aren't even federally illegal to drive. Three 0.05 offences (which can be as little as two beers) and now you can't drive anymore. From the people that offend in major drunk driving accidents.. Do they blow 0.0801 or do they blow 0.15? If they're blowing .15 this law is not a deterrant to their behaviour.
Where are the studies that show that 0.08 wasn't working? The studies that show 0.05 would save more lives? This is just like that bullshit law where they wanted new young drivers to have zero passengers in the car... Or why Toronto has these countdown crosswalks..
There's never any fucking studies done to prove that anything actually works, even if it sounds like lowering the target makes sense..
Argh.
Studies are shown that studies are not publically recognized.
Seriously, doesn't affect me one way or the other.
Drunk-Driving Laws Are Absurd by Mark R. Crovelli
Sure maybe .05 isn't a level at which most would be considered "hammered", but, for some, i am sure that level slows down their reaction time. Sure for the seasoned veteran power drinkers, .05 is nothing, hell probably .08 isn't even. But there has to be some sort of level determined to set precidence. All i can say to the ones who bitch about any of the DUI laws is.....wait till some drunk fk'in retard, who has the mentallity that he can handle his booze and still drive with no problems, has a little slip up, and kills someone close to you. Then let me hear you say..."hey judge, there level was only .08 or .10, let the dumbass go free with out a fine or jail time, it was only my wife or daughter/son or mom that he killed."
And for the record, the asshole that slammed head-on into us back in 1981/82, it was not his first time driving drunk, but the laws were not as harsh as they are now. So the dick-head figured he had no problems slamming down a few before heading to the airport to pick up his family. My main regret is that the asshole didn't make it to the airport, where instead he could have picked up his own family and gotten into an accident(preferably a single car accident) and ruined their lives instead.
I used to drive when I was so plastered I couldn't walk. Slamming into snow banks left and right. Couldn't believe the next morning that I'd made it into my parking spot.
Then a good friend blew himself apart running into a telephone pole and that was it for me. Never again.
I just don't see what the big deal is. Just don't drink that night, or call a cab...or figure something out so you don't have to drive. It's not that difficult. We've managed to get used to no smoking laws. In the beginning people thought they were too restrictive. Now not many question them. Why can't people just get used to not driving after a few. It's evolution people. Darwin had it figured out long ago...
Everyone had a very sad tale about whatever their agenda is to get passed into law. While I'm sure you story is sadder than all the rest, I only care about enacting laws that make sense based on the results of public debate and scientific study.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. As your rights slowly erode over time, you'll wonder why you didn't fight a little harder when these kinds of 'good intentioned' laws were passed.
Yes, there are drunk drivers who are blind drunk out there that kill people. They are bad, they should not be on the road. The real question is if ANY of the laws that are out there are a deterrant to their reckless bevahiour? If it's not, then what value does the law have by ensnaring the guy that had two beers, ruining HIS life while reducing nary a single indicint of the blind-drunks on the road?
No.. People have realized that now that it's a law, theres no way any politician will ever get up and repeal it.. Just like this 0.05 law.. No one will ever get up and say it's a waste of time and abuse of power, so we'll be stuck with it forever.
I guess with the drinking and driving thing I have no clue what the answer is. I understand you can't protect people from themselves or legislate against stupidity.
Generally in criminology it's been proven many times that general (ie. as opposed to specific) deterrence is based on the certainty that someone will be caught and successfully prosecuted, rather than the severity of sentencing. So how do we get the lushbags out from behind the wheel? How do we make sure that the guy who has a couple of beers doesn't have his driving privelege revoked for no solid reason. How do you make sure that someone who can't handle their booze, and has a couple of beers, doesn't kill someone. Honest questions, and I certainly don't have the answer.
Well I think you have to attack the problem in a different way, the way that MADD did it.. You change the attitudes that society has towards the offence.. The article that Big Mike attached makes a very good point. 'Someone who already thinks they can cheat death by driving drunk isn't going to be deterred by jail'. But responsible serving by bars, peer pressure and responsible friends can keep that guy out of his car.
And it worked, growing up we'd always have a DD when we went out anywhere and still do..
I just believe that it's ok for my friend to come over to my house and have a beer or two and not have to be hooking himself up to a blood machine to see if he's gambling against laws that don't even hit the people they're supposed to be targetting.
In today's society, more and more people rely on personal transportation (sorry tree-huggers). More people make a living by traveling some distance to their workplace - often not accessible by alternative methods (public transit, bikes, etc.). Further, many people also make a living BY driving - delivery, truck drivers and so on. I would suggest the punitive measures against a person's right to drive is actually causing a snowball effect of problems.
My suggestion then is to attack the other variable in the equation - alcohol. We now have the readily-accessible technology to basically have tonnes of information about each individual imprinted on our driver's license / identification card, why would we not then simply make a category or status detailing the person's "alcohol license". Simply put, you show up at an LCBO / Beer Store / Pub, and present your driver's license, a simple swipe will detail if you've ever been charged with a liquor-related offense (drinking and driving, assault or other physical crimes while under the influence).
Using this information, that person is now disallowed from purchasing alcohol - they're a bad drunk! Sure, there are ways around this, people buying for others and what not, but the bottom line is, there are ways around every rule. This approach however is multi-beneficial as it will (potentially) lower the number of inebriated drivers on the road, as well as the late night, alcohol-fueled fights, assaults, sexual assaults, and self-harming behaviour.
I'm not naive enough to think that it would eliminate it of course, but surely the poor slob that gets nailed for .05 alcohol and can't go to work delivering UPS or driving cab for three days - not to mention the potential stigmas and consequences of such a charge - would be better served, while simultaneously the 26er / day drinker who beats his wife and drives down to the pub may get caught earlier.
Mark
Think about the comment I made about general deterrance though. Perhaps jail won't deter the person from driving drunk if they don't think they'll get caught. However the increased certainty that they will be caught and given some form of consequence should they be driving under the influence whether it is above .08 or .05, could well have an impact. If they previously thought they could make it home at .07 and wouldn't get in trouble if pulled over because they were under .08, now wouldn't they reconsider if they knew they could have some form of consequence for simply being over a lower level (ie..05)? Not sure if that makes total sense even thought I've read through it a number of times. Sorry about that. I hope you get what I'm trying to say.
Even having said that, someone could take my arguement somewhere even I don't want it to go and simply say "ok, then let's make it zero tolerence. Any alcohol in your system and your done driving for the night."
It really is a complex issue. It really pisses people off when their lives can be changed so much by becoming a victim, and there was nothing whatsoever they could do about it at the time. Just so happened they were crossing the street, driving home, whatever, and this car slams into them. Wrong time wrong place...
Like I said, you can't legislate people out of stupidity, and there's always going to be someone out there who just doesn't give a shit about consequences for themselves or others.
No matter what laws you create, you can't change that. I assume the goal of the new law is to simply hit the percentages that will give thought before getting behind the wheel half pissed or fully pissed.
Anyhoo, good discussions for a cloudy Sunday morning. Actually made the fog in my hungover head dissipate slightly. Got loaded last night at a home game where I got my ass kicked by my buddies Mom who likes to go all in with air "because I like to play the black shiny chips"! Variance is always a friend to these people.
I walked home by the way.
<Slips on his standard puppet>
"Deterrents don't work"
Mark
I do like the suggestion of having your licence imprinted and swiped before being served, as i think it would be another positive step in reducing the "bad drunks" from doing another stupid thing. But then it brings up the debate of "Just how much can one individual handle before reaching their personal limit". Obviously a 250lb person who consumes 2-3-4 drinks a day can handle the effects better due to a "tolerance" build up, over say a 135 lb person who hardly drinks at all, but indulges in a 2-3-4 drink night. How can any law regulate the variances in each persons tolerances. They can't. But, any law that gets even the seasoned drinker to think twice about having that "extra" drink before heading out on the road, i think is a good one.
While I agree with having to get drunks off the road, I really have an issue with this method. We once again have the police acting in judgment of you without due process.
OPRC, I think you're in the same ballpark as myself on this subject. I don't want the government telling me how to live, but I'm just not convinced that any amount of advertising about the problems associated with DUI are going to be effective. People see them and forget them. How can you get people THINKING before they act? As I said before, in terms of general deterrence you have to increase the odds of being caught/consequenced before people consider whether or not to act in a certain way.
Like Drtyore said "Deterrence doesn't work" (I'd add 'all the time'), but it's at least one more tool to get the message across and get people considering options.
And it is kind of a shame that it seems the only way to get the point across to some people, is to have it directly impact their own life. Either they themselves end up injuring someone, or someone they love gets injured or worse from some other drunk driver. I guess the best one can hope for is that society as a whole will wake the hell up one day and start doing the "right thing". Until that happens, we will just have to make do with constantly changing laws governing the way we live our lives to protect those we know and love.
Just to clarify my suggestion above regarding the restriction of alcohol versus restriction of driving licenses. I'm not suggesting a tiered or scaled approach.... if you're a bad drunk, you don't drink anymore. Nobody has a "right" to drink... and if you're a proven assaultive / endangering drinker, then you just don't get to drink... not unlike if you're a dangerous driver, you don't get to drive.
Mark
A buddy of mine (who had never rode bike before) bought a Katana, shipped it over to his home in Brazil. His plan was to sell it for 2-3 times what he payed for it. I gave him some riding lessons, and told him, what ever he does, DO NOT drink and ride. I get a call from his brother in Brazil telling me he wiped out at 2am and they are not sure if he is going to live. He did live, scarred for lifefrom major road rash (no helmet on) and to add to that, he has a totally demolished bike he can't sell and still owes 9k for.
Like i said, i guess it takes a personal tradegy to wake some of the dumb shits up.
MADD, as an organization, has strayed so far from it's original mandate that the founder of the U.S. version now actively works AGAINST many of their initiatives. In the States, MADD is little more than a prohibitionist lobby group that masks itself with a, now abandoned, worthy goal.
MADD in Canada is rapidly heading down that road, foot firmly on the accelerator.
In Canada, they are heading down that road. Out in BC, the MADD group for the province, I believe, could have been Victoria can't remember was unregistered as a charitable organization as their administrative costs went above a certain percentage. Some brutal figure like over 50% or something. Donating to them became -EV, and the overseeing National organization had them delisted. Not the first charitable organization to have that happen to though.
As someone said earlier Bullshit.