Driving ban for life after DUI? Drunk driving - from it is OK to execution, ect....


JLM
#301
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

JLM's trolling thread I think. Without getting into detail, I give reds when the post requires a response but isn't worth much effort...personal attacks, childishness, name calling...you get the point (or perhaps not)


Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee HeeHee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee

Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee HeeHee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee

Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee HeeHee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee -
 
L Gilbert
+2
#302
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Here Les, I've quoted post 323 because it's obviously too difficult for you to scroll back.

And yet one more time, you've reached the conclusion that too much is spent without even knowing what is spent.
I spent x on a particular tool. So do you think I spent too much on it?
 
JLM
#303
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

You do appear to be the number 1 member for handing out reds.

To me for sure, I've probably had 50 since I got one from Teddy or Walter (and I thought those guys were idiots)

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

It sure goes well with the truck he fell off....

Yeah, and if he ain't careful I'll down grade him to a water melon!
 
Cannuck
-1
#304
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

And yet one more time, you've reached the conclusion that too much is spent without even knowing what is spent.

Seriously dood, have you been drinking this afternoon?

Quote:

C - I think we should know these things so the response is on par with the situation.

On what planet is your conclusion similar to my conclusion?
 
Ron in Regina
#305
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

Oh God Guys...This Thread is titled:

Driving ban for life after DUI? Drunk driving - from it is OK to execution, ect....

I don't believe the topic has anything to do with Reds or Greens or
Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down or the constant & chronic complaining
about the same. It's so old, & derails so many threads.

Please stick to the Thread Topic.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#306
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

...and nobody has the right to make other Canadians pay the horrendous legal costs to deal with a non-problem just because they have an issue with it.

Here you are ASSuming the cost of catching people impaired between 0.05 and 0.08 is a horrendous cost.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I'm not afraid to change my mind if the facts suggest I need to.

Why would you need to change your mind unless you've reached a conclusion? An undecided person cannot change their mind.

At any rate, I have come to the conclusion that since there are a number of deaths of drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 and the fact that the statistic I found only referred to those drivers' deaths and not injuries or the deaths and injuries of passengers, pedestrians, etc., and science has shown impaired judgement and motor skills after 0.05, 0.05 is a safe limit to come to. And I have not seen sufficient argument to cause me to change my conclusion. After that, I think people who get caught and convicted twice should not be driving, so yes, they should lose that freedom.
Last edited by L Gilbert; Dec 1st, 2012 at 06:49 PM..
 
Cannuck
#307
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Here you are ASSuming the cost of catching people impaired between 0.05 and 0.08 is a horrendous cost.


No I'm not. I said I don't know. I don't know how many times I need to say that before you understand.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

At any rate, I have come to the conclusion that since there are a number of deaths of drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 and the fact that the statistic I found only referred to those drivers' deaths and not injuries or the deaths and injuries of passengers, pedestrians, etc., and science has shown impaired judgement and motor skills after 0.05, 0.05 is a safe limit to come to. And I have not seen sufficient argument to cause me to change my conclusion. After that, I think people who get caught and convicted twice should not be driving, so yes, they should lose that freedom.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion regardless of whether they care to look deeper.
 
JLM
+2
#308
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

Please stick to the Thread Topic.

Hello Ron- not meaning to sound cheeky but when there is one constant in a problem, generally removing the constant fixes it.-

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Here you are ASSuming the cost of catching people impaired between 0.05 and 0.08 is a horrendous cost.

Why would you need to change your mind unless you've reached a conclusion? An undecided person cannot change their mind.

At any rate, I have come to the conclusion that since there are a number of deaths of drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 and the fact that the statistic I found only referred to those drivers' deaths and not injuries or the deaths and injuries of passengers, pedestrians, etc., and science has shown impaired judgement and motor skills after 0.05, 0.05 is a safe limit to come to. And I have not seen sufficient argument to cause me to change my conclusion. After that, I think people who get caught and convicted twice should not be driving, so yes, they should lose that freedom.

The way I see it, while the cops have set up a road block they are on a wage and whether they stop one car in an hour or 50 it all costs the same, and whether a guy blows 0.00 or 5.6 that all costs the same, so the contention they can't bother with guys under 0.08 is BULL SH*T.
 
Cannuck
#309
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

The way I see it, while the cops have set up a road block they are on a wage and whether they stop one car in an hour or 50 it all costs the same, and whether a guy blows 0.00 or 5.6 that all costs the same, so the contention they can't bother with guys under 0.08 is BULL SH*T.

The "cost" does not just include the cost of the police.
 
Goober
#310
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

The "cost" does not just include the cost of the police.

I would then suggest asking your local municipality what the costs are for these type of stops. Every area will be a tad different. Not much but a tad.
 
JLM
#311
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

I would then suggest asking your local municipality what the costs are for these type of stops. Every area will be a tad different. Not much but a tad.

And whatever the cost, if it was reported that one life was saved would anyone say it's too expensive? (Like is it more expensive than supporting family of a wage earner on welfare for 20 years?)
 
Goober
#312
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

And whatever the cost, if it was reported that one life was saved would anyone say it's too expensive? (Like is it more expensive than supporting family of a wage earner on welfare for 20 years?)

Costs for Police- Fire fighters etc - man hours and equipment costs - replacements for equipment- can be obtained by contacting your local municipality. You should be able to get a fair idea of the costs.
But I am not doing another Members research.
 
JLM
#313
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Costs for Police- Fire fighters etc - man hours and equipment costs - replacements for equipment- can be obtained by contacting your local municipality. You should be able to get a fair idea of the costs.
But I am not doing another Members research.

Nah, we should let our chief spokesman do the research and I might spot check once in awhile to make sure he's not Bullsh*tting.-
 
Cannuck
#314
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

And whatever the cost, if it was reported that one life was saved would anyone say it's too expensive?

Yes. I could, especially if there are more cost effective ways of making things safer.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

(Like is it more expensive than supporting family of a wage earner on welfare for 20 years?)

Once you factor in moving through the legal system, remand and probation, it just might be.

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Costs for Police- Fire fighters etc - man hours and equipment costs - replacements for equipment- can be obtained by contacting your local municipality. You should be able to get a fair idea of the costs.
But I am not doing another Members research.

That's only a portion of the cost (see above). Then there is the cost of removing ones license which may put them out of work. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a comprehensive study done to determine what it costs society for each impaired charge.
 
Goober
#315
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Yes. I could, especially if there are more cost effective ways of making things safer.

What are your suggestions.

Quote:

Once you factor in moving through the legal system, remand and probation, it just might be.

So what would you do-remove this from the Criminal Code
 
JLM
#316
I never would have thought suggestions warranted "reds"!-

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

What are your suggestions.


I doubt if he's thought that far yet......................give him a week or two.
 
Cannuck
#317
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

What are your suggestions.

The first thing I would do do is have a comprehensive study to determine what the costs of our current approach is and how significant the problem is.
 
Goober
#318
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

The first thing I would do do is have a comprehensive study to determine what the costs of our current approach is and how significant the problem is.

But all the research is available- I asked 2 questions, your thoughts are?
 
Cannuck
#319
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

But all the research is available- I asked 2 questions, your thoughts are?

So people keep saying. I haven't seen it though. The answer to your second question would depend on the results of the study
 
Goober
#320
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

So people keep saying. I haven't seen it though. The answer to your second question would depend on the results of the study

LG, others and myself have posted documented damages, injuries and deaths - They do not include the long time emotional scars to family, friends and other to those that are left with permanent injuries- costs that are borne by health care- social assistance- insurance payouts- Then we add in the deaths caused by in my opinion Freaking Idiots that drive impaired.

Yet they are not valid to you. Why is that.
 
Cannuck
+1
#321
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

LG, others and myself have posted documented damages, injuries and deaths - They do not include the long time emotional scars to family, friends and other to those that are left with permanent injuries- costs that are borne by health care- social assistance- insurance payouts- Then we add in the deaths caused by in my opinion Freaking Idiots that drive impaired.

Yet they are not valid to you. Why is that.

Because they lump all impaired drivers together. I see no reason to believe, given my own personal experience, that a driver at 0.08 is the same risk as a driver at 0.16. As I've said, I could be wrong but I haven't seen any statistical data that would contradict my own personal experience. I think I already posted that, as a firefighter, I've been to some nasty DD wrecks. I'd bet 6 months of paychecks that not a single one involved a driver under 0.10
 
Goober
#322
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Because they lump all impaired drivers together. I see no reason to believe, given my own personal experience, that a driver at 0.08 is the same risk as a driver at 0.16. As I've said, I could be wrong but I haven't seen any statistical data that would contradict my own personal experience. I think I already posted that, as a firefighter, I've been to some nasty DD wrecks. I'd bet 6 months of paychecks that not a single one involved a driver under 0.10

Then you should look for accidents caused by unpaired drivers with a BAC at or under 0.10
 
JLM
#323
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

LG, others and myself have posted documented damages, injuries and deaths - They do not include the long time emotional scars to family, friends and other to those that are left with permanent injuries- costs that are borne by health care- social assistance- insurance payouts- Then we add in the deaths caused by in my opinion Freaking Idiots that drive impaired.

Yet they are not valid to you. Why is that.

Actually I'm not convinced that drivers with 0.16 are that much more dangerous, people with lower amounts aren't aware of the hazards of the situation whereas guys who are sh*t faced know they are a hazard and often slow right down and close one eye.-
 
Goober
#324
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Actually I'm not convinced that drivers with 0.16 are that much more dangerous, people with lower amounts aren't aware of the hazards of the situation whereas guys who are sh*t faced know they are a hazard and often slow right down and close one eye.-

Most police will not lay charges when the BAC is at 0.10 or lower- Approx 1/3rd of the impaired cases are won by the defendant- if you can afford a good lawyer and a substantial cost-
Study after study has shown impairment is significant at 0.08
 
JLM
#325
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Most police will not lay charges when the BAC is at 0.10 or lower- Approx 1/3rd of the impaired cases are won by the defendant- if you can afford a good lawyer and a substantial cost-
Study after study has shown impairment is significant at 0.08

At risk of sounding boring I don't think people should be driving after consuming ANY amount especially upon observing a good 1/3 of the drivers on the road aren't fit to drive cold sober. An idiot with one or two drinks is lethal.
 
Cannuck
+1
#326
If it really is a safety issue, why not change the labour standards so shift workers get more days off between shift changes (Shift work cause sleep deprivation and workers impairment can be considered equivalent to a BAC of at least 0.08 ). What about farm labourers that drive tandems 24 hours a day during harvest.

The reason is that it would cost too much money. Our society is willing to take the risk.
Last edited by Cannuck; Dec 2nd, 2012 at 02:52 AM..
 
JLM
#327
The best solution to all of it is just to stay in bed all day.
 
Cannuck
#328
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

The best solution to all of it is just to stay in bed all day.

If it saves one child, isn't it worth it?
 
Dixie Cup
#329
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Ya, I understand MADD and RIDE stats as they have been regurgitated ad nauseum by many folks over the years. I'm not saying that alcohol and driving isn't a problem. The question is when does it become a problem. Show me some stats that say that driving wit a BAC of 0.80 is such a significant problem that we should spend millions of dollars a year dealing with it.


I'm thinking I might agree somewhat with you on this. If I'm not mistaken (and I might be) I thought I read somewhere that most of the fatalities/DUI accidents - whatever you want to call them, involve individuals who BAC are much higher than .08.

I also have thought about a commercial I've seen on TV where it shows glasses of beer and how after 1 beer the vision is somewhat distorted, after 2 it's worse, 3 even more so...etc. I have found that commercial disingenuious because while I'm not a big drinker, I have had 1 beer and my eyesight has not been affected at all to the extent portrayed on the commercial. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have realized this which means people are less likely to take the message to heart because it's not accurate. I can't remember who sponsors the ad - perhaps MADD but it's one of the reasons why I think there may be something said about their messaging.

Perhaps a tea totteling (toddeling??) individual who has never had a drink in their life would likely be affected by 1 beer, but the "average" individual who has a dirnk or 2 or 3 a week would not be so affected in my humble opinion. Thats not to say that I agree that you should be drinking and driving - but some common sense needs to become part of the discussion as well.

JMO
 
JLM
#330
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

If it saves one child, isn't it worth it?

With all your expounding on here and your extensive knowledge about everything, I thought you might have enough cells to detect a little tongue in cheek.
 

Similar Threads

69
B.C.s new drunk driving laws
by JLM | Sep 25th, 2010
57
Drunk driving laws
by Kreskin | May 9th, 2010
28
Drunk Driving Program Goes Too Far?
by karrie | Jun 12th, 2008
no new posts