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


SLM
#31
Personally I think jail time is kind of useless but I'd have no problem revoking, for life or for long periods of time (say 5-10 years) for violations. Whether it's harsh or not, those who are capable of change will make changes in their life. Those who are not capable of change (and some people never do change) at least will not be taking down a bus full of school children with them.

I think though you should have the ability to re-license after a period of time but you need to prove that you are now responsible enough to hold a license.

I'm just tired of repeat offenders, chronic offenders who face no repercussions that make them change their behaviour. That they don't hurt or kill someone is nothing more than luck.
 
Cannuck
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

I'm curious about attitudes here concerning the idea that if you are cought driving drunk even once, even if you hurt no one, got into no accident, and your blood alcohol were just barely over the legal limit, that you are automatically banned from driving a personal vehicle for life, with life meaning life; and if you either violate this driving ban or, alternatively, get cought driving drunk again even for non-personal reasons such as work or business, again even if you hurt no one and had no accident, automatic X years of hard labour, maybe even life.

Would this be too harsh or reasonable?

Yes it's too harsh. To begin with, we should throw out the term "drunk" driving because people can't agree on what "drunk" is. If we are going to use the term "impaired" than it should be impaired regardless of what is causing the impairment (ie sleep deprivation or drugs).

Secondly, we should compare BAC levels (as opposed to legal impairment) to accident stats. I read an interesting study done in Australia a few years ago that said that the accident rate begins to drop as people drink until the BAC hits 0.10. One possible reason is that while people's judgement may become impaired, they may tend to compensate in other ways such as staying off of major thoroughfares.

If I wish to take drastic steps to protect myself, the first thing I need to determine is where the risk is. That clearly hasn't been done because people like MADD like to make the issue emotional so they can increase revenue. After all, the number one rule of sales is people buy emotionally and justify logically.
 
lone wolf
+4
#33
Driving bans don't mean much to anyone who thinks they are above the law.
 
Machjo
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

Personally I think jail time is kind of useless but I'd have no problem revoking, for life or for long periods of time (say 5-10 years) for violations. Whether it's harsh or not, those who are capable of change will make changes in their life. Those who are not capable of change (and some people never do change) at least will not be taking down a bus full of school children with them.

I think though you should have the ability to re-license after a period of time but you need to prove that you are now responsible enough to hold a license.

I'm just tired of repeat offenders, chronic offenders who face no repercussions that make them change their behaviour. That they don't hurt or kill someone is nothing more than luck.

Maybe. Or perhaps revocation of license for an indefinite period until proven to be treated for alcoholism or something of the sort?

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Driving bans don't mean much to anyone who thinks they are above the law.

Maybe not. But at least there is then recourse if the person is cought driving without a license.
 
Angstrom
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Maybe. Or perhaps revocation of license for an indefinite period until proven to be treated for alcoholism or something of the sort?

That's basically what we have for punishment here in Ontario already.
Its called the back on track program.
http://www.remedial.net/about.html
 
SLM
+1
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Driving bans don't mean much to anyone who thinks they are above the law.

Laws don't mean much to criminals in general but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Maybe. Or perhaps revocation of license for an indefinite period until proven to be treated for alcoholism or something of the sort?

I'd also support a call for absolutely zero blood alcohol levels too. No one has a right to drink, no one has a right to drive. No one should have a right to do them together in any capacity.
 
Cannuck
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Why are MADD & RIDE a big part of the problem?

Because they are dishonest. It's difficult to have an honest discussion and assessment of the problem when so many people buy into their propaganda. That's why RIDE likes to trot out the stat about "drunk" driving being the biggest criminal cause of death. The real question should be, how many deaths are caused in Canada by people with a BAC under 0.10 and is it really worth it for us to invest so much time, effort and tax dollars on a problem of that scope.
 
Angstrom
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

I'd also support a call for absolutely zero blood alcohol levels too. No one has a right to drink, no one has a right to drive. No one should have a right to do them together in any capacity.


Your such a sour party pooper.
Let people have a little bit of responsible fun.
Sheeesh
 
Goober
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Because they are dishonest. It's difficult to have an honest discussion and assessment of the problem when so many people buy into their propaganda. That's why RIDE likes to trot out the stat about "drunk" driving being the biggest criminal cause of death. The real question should be, how many deaths are caused in Canada by people with a BAC under 0.10 and is it really worth it for us to invest so much time, effort and tax dollars on a problem of that scope.

Murders in Canada
2006 -606
2007 -594
2008 - 611
2009 - 610
2010 - 554

800 was the average for persons killed from drunk drivers- did not add in the accident costs for those that lived.
Alcohol impairs- fact- 1 drink or 5 drinks- it impairs abilities.
 
L Gilbert
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

I'm curious about attitudes here concerning the idea that if you are cought driving drunk even once, even if you hurt no one, got into no accident, and your blood alcohol were just barely over the legal limit, that you are automatically banned from driving a personal vehicle for life, with life meaning life; and if you either violate this driving ban or, alternatively, get cought driving drunk again even for non-personal reasons such as work or business, again even if you hurt no one and had no accident, automatic X years of hard labour, maybe even life.

Would this be too harsh or reasonable?

Increasingly heavier fines till the 3rd time (like $50K or more on the third) along with some jail time and then a complete ban on ANY alcohol complete with a daily trip to the copshop for a couple years and then random blood-testing for a few more. And a publicly funded buspass every year. After that, a minimum of 10 years public service and wage garnishees. No jail after the 3rd conviction.
BTW, impaired driving doesn't have to include legal or illegal substances. One can impair their driving simply by yakking on a cellphone or changing a disc in their player.
 
Cannuck
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

I'd also support a call for absolutely zero blood alcohol levels too. No one has a right to drink, no one has a right to drive. No one should have a right to do them together in any capacity.

...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.
 
Goober
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View 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.

Yes, the Govt does. The BAC should be 0.0000
 
L Gilbert
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Yes, the Govt does. The BAC should be 0.0000

As I suggested, though, impairment can be due to more than just substance abuse. Where would you like to stop? 0 tolerance for anything distracting from the ability to drive?
 
Cannuck
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Murders in Canada
2006 -606
2007 -594
2008 - 611
2009 - 610
2010 - 554

800 was the average for persons killed from drunk drivers- did not add in the accident costs for those that lived.
Alcohol impairs- fact- 1 drink or 5 drinks- it impairs abilities.

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.
 
Goober
+1
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

As I suggested, though, impairment can be due to more than just substance abuse. Where would you like to stop? 0 tolerance for anything distracting from the ability to drive?

I missed the 4 - 0.04000 - Thanks for bring that up.
Yes impairment can come from a number of things.
Oddly enough most accidents happen when driving weather and conditions are great- dry roads, sunny days - nice day for driving- leads to complacency. Roads and weather are terrible- more people pay attention.
 
Cannuck
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

The BAC should be 0.0000

I'm well aware of your opinion on the matter. It would be nice though (considering that you wish to push your beliefs on others) if you actually posted some stats that might convince me that spending money (we don't have) on the problem is warranted.
 
Goober
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Ya, I understand MADD and RIDE stats as they have been regurgitated ad nausea 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.

Check Google- stats show the levels of scientifically measured impairment by low levels of BAC.
 
SLM
+2
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

As I suggested, though, impairment can be due to more than just substance abuse. Where would you like to stop? 0 tolerance for anything distracting from the ability to drive?

It can be sure. No cell phones. I've seen people rear end others while texting.

If people want to do stupid things, let them, who cares. But the moment they can reasonably endanger others while being stupid is when we should step in.

I'd endorse 0 BAC over ridiculous wrangling over a few points for where intoxication begins for what person.
 
Goober
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I'm well aware of your opinion on the matter. It would be nice though (considering that you wish to push your beliefs on others) if you actually posted some stats that might convince me that spending money (we don't have) on the problem is warranted.

Do you believe that drunk driving is not a problem?
 
Cannuck
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Check Google- stats show the levels of scientifically measured impairment by low levels of BAC.

I'm well aware of those stats. I was referring to stats about BAC and accidents. If we are going to throw people in jail or, at the very least, run them through a very expensive legal preceding, because of a BAC of 0.08, shouldn't we know if they are actually a problem?
 
lone wolf
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Maybe not. But at least there is then recourse if the person is cought driving without a license.

There always has been....
Do you have any idea how many people are out there today on our highways who have no right (privilege) to be there?
 
Cannuck
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Do you believe that drunk driving is not a problem?

As I've already said, the term drunk means different things to different people. You should be more specific.

If you are asking me if I believe people with a BAC between 0 and 0.10 are a problem, then I would have to say that I've never seen any evidence that says they are.
 
JLM
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

There always has been....
Do you have any idea how many people are out there today on our highways who have no right (privilege) to be there?

Yep, MOST of them...........I'd guess 75% of them speed on a regular basis and 50% tail gate on regular basis.
 
Goober
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

As I've already said, the term drunk means different things to different people. You should be more specific.

If you are asking me if I believe people with a BAC between 0 and 0.10 are a problem, then I would have to say that I've never seen any evidence that says they are.

Not a problem in your opinion- BAC 0.08 and higher is impaired in Canada.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#55
According to science, 0.05 ml/l is when judgement and motor skills (reaction time, etc.) BOTH become impaired.
 
JLM
+4
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by gore0bsessed View Post

Well you see, a license is required to drive. When you don't own one you do not have permission from the government to drive any type of vehicle.

He also did not have permission from the Gov't to DRINK & DRIVE, did that stop him? Are you naive or just plain stupid? -

Trolling continues to be lucrative......................catching the same idiot over and over!-
 
Goober
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

According to science, 0.05 ml/l is when judgement and motor-skills BOTH become impaired.

I believe that is the level that MADD wants. Some countries if I recall correctly have a BAC of 0.00
Using a bluetooth while driving does cause impairment.
 
Ron in Regina
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

According to science, 0.05 ml/l is when judgement and motor skills (reaction time, etc.) BOTH become impaired.

With that in mind, isn't BC the place that yoinks your licence, and impounds your vehicle,
for 24hrs from the roadside without the due process of a court date, judgement, etc...?

Whoops...based upon 0.04ml/l
 
lone wolf
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Yep, MOST of them...........I'd guess 75% of them speed on a regular basis and 50% tail gate on regular basis.

I know one guy who actually drove to and FROM Court on his Impaired Driving date with the judge....
 
Cannuck
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Not a problem in your opinion- BAC 0.08 and higher is impaired in Canada.

Yes, I think we all know what the law is. The question is whether it should be. Neither MADD nor RIDE have given any me any reason to believe 0.08 should be. I see you are having the same issue they are.
 

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