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

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
I think there is one major problem taxslave, with impaired driving you are dealing with a "moving target". If everyone was affected the same with alcohol, you could set a standard above which it is dangerous to be driving, but it doesn't work that way, I can remember the old days when 0.15 was the limit and a lot of us could (or thought we could) drive fine at that level, while others aren't fit to be on the road at 0.05, so a limit has to be set that is safe for everyone. What really got me inflamed with Cannuck was his mention of "insignificant deaths", meaning they weren't important. As soon as he loses one argument he tries to switch it to firearms and then fires which are completely off topic. All deaths are serious and I think everything reasonable should be done to try to eliminate them. Over the past 30 years or so I've just completely changed my stance on impaired driving, for many reasons, more traffic on the road, faster vehicles, more unstable people at large some of which are also on drugs, so now I wouldn't do it, either drink at home or take a cab or the bus or a designated driver.........there's lots of choices.

True, but we are currently targeting those with between .05-.08 which is below the legal limit for impaired at huge cost in manpower. The only reason I can see for it is that the fine system they set up for it cannot be fought in court. For the most part this catches people with the money necessary to jump through the hoops while the chronics are still driving after multiple convictions often without licenses and sometimes unlicensed vehicles.
To date all the accidents I have been to where the driver was drunk he/she was around double the legal limit. These are the ones that need to be targeted.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
True, but we are currently targeting those with between .05-.08 which is below the legal limit for impaired at huge cost in manpower. The only reason I can see for it is that the fine system they set up for it cannot be fought in court. For the most part this catches people with the money necessary to jump through the hoops while the chronics are still driving after multiple convictions often without licenses and sometimes unlicensed vehicles.
To date all the accidents I have been to where the driver was drunk he/she was around double the legal limit. These are the ones that need to be targeted.

A real problem to be sure that probably won't be solved on this forum. I would think the vast majority of those driving after drinking are in the lower range, due to the awareness and only a real idiot would even try it after having more than two drinks. My philosophy on the subject is this.............I'm sure I can drive safely after two drinks BUT what would happen if a child runs out in front of me and I hit him/her causing death? For one thing I would be questioning if I hadn't had those two drinks would it have made a difference. Would I be able to face up to the outrage in the community based on emotions caused by the fact I HAD been drinking and killed a child? From my view it just isn't worth the risk. There is also the fact that after having two drinks some people can justify a third one. Best just not to go there.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I don't think society is well served by criminalizing its citizenry unless what they are doing is truly dangerous. To say that we want to arrest, imprison, and ruin some person because what they did resembled something that could be really dangerous if taken further, is a disservice in my opinion. If one drink doesn't cause me serious impairment, I deserve to judge for myself. Just like I have to judge for myself every single day if my mental impairment is too much to drive, if my vision is okay to drive. The only time the government should be worried about whether or not I can drive adequately is at licensing time, or when it is demonstrated on the road that I can not. Let's be honest, a lower limit is being putIto place because morons who break the law have continued to break the law despite the current limits in place. The only people who will be dinged by lower limits are people who wouldn't have driven drunk anyway.

Personally, I don't drive after even a glass of wine. My mental clarity isn't at the best sober, I definitely dont need to risk it. I've seen the results of drunk driving, and I don't want to be a cautionary tale. But, I highly doubt that ruining the lives of people who have two beer and then drive, is going to make our roads any safer. It's lip service.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
I don't think society is well served by criminalizing its citizenry unless what they are doing is truly dangerous. To say that we want to arrest, imprison, and ruin some person because what they did resembled something that could be really dangerous if taken further, is a disservice in my opinion. If one drink doesn't cause me serious impairment, I deserve to judge for myself. Just like I have to judge for myself every single day if my mental impairment is too much to drive, if my vision is okay to drive. The only time the government should be worried about whether or not I can drive adequately is at licensing time, or when it is demonstrated on the road that I can not. Let's be honest, a lower limit is being putIto place because morons who break the law have continued to break the law despite the current limits in place. The only people who will be dinged by lower limits are people who wouldn't have driven drunk anyway.

Personally, I don't drive after even a glass of wine. My mental clarity isn't at the best sober, I definitely dont need to risk it. I've seen the results of drunk driving, and I don't want to be a cautionary tale. But, I highly doubt that ruining the lives of people who have two beer and then drive, is going to make our roads any safer. It's lip service.

Good post, Karrie! It's a slippery slope to be sure, the main problem being you can only pass ONE law to cover all citizens. 90%, like you are disciplined enough to be sensible, but sadly to attempt to be PERFECTLY safe you have to treat everyone like babies or people are going to die, no doubt some will anyway, just hope it will be fewer.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Good post, Karrie! It's a slippery slope to be sure, the main problem being you can only pass ONE law to cover all citizens. 90%, like you are disciplined enough to be sensible, but sadly to attempt to be PERFECTLY safe you have to treat everyone like babies or people are going to die, no doubt some will anyway, just hope it will be fewer.

You can't effectively police idiocy. Education serves society better than punishment does. Ultra low limits will only cost us money (court costs, lost taxes when you remove someones license and prevent them from a good paying job because they are now a felon)....not save lives.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
212
63
In the bush near Sudbury
I figure the first time, you may have made a mistake. The second? You didn't learn from it. There should be no third - but with certain arrogant drunks you'd have to prevent them from getting behind the wheel by more permanent means.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
You can't effectively police idiocy. Education serves society better than punishment does. Ultra low limits will only cost us money (court costs, lost taxes when you remove someones license and prevent them from a good paying job because they are now a felon)....not save lives.

I hear you!
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,522
14,323
113
Low Earth Orbit
Who here has had a family member or someone close to you killed by a drunk driver?

 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Who here has had a family member or someone close to you killed by a drunk driver?


I have. I've also lost people to speeding and to fatigue and nearly lost hubby a couple times to weather related accidents. I preach journey management like it's a religion. No trip is worth making if it means your life.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
How does it give them more credibility?

Very simple - they are living and feeling what most of us are only imagining!

I'm not mad about MADD. They rank right up there with the pink frying pan people.

3 family and 2 friends....SO FAR!

Don't know why not, I would think when you are in the depths of dispair, there is no better support than from someone "whose been there" too.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,522
14,323
113
Low Earth Orbit
Very simple - they are living and feeling what most of us are only imagining!
Are they? They have become a marketing gimmick. Like all good things they get usurped by marketing the instant there is a dollar to be made off of someone else's suffering.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Very simple - they are living and feeling what most of us are only imagining!

True but they aren't necessarily objective about what will work best for society in legal terms.

I think the best thing about MADD is that they do exactly what's needed most....educate their children. But invoking theIr heartbreak to try to justify low or zero limits, to my way of thinking at least, seems almost to prove the point that it's an emotional law, not necessarily a practical or right one.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
True but they aren't necessarily objective about what will work best for society in legal terms.

I think the best thing about MADD is that they do exactly what's needed most....educate their children. But invoking theIr heartbreak to try to justify low or zero limits, to my way of thinking at least, seems almost to prove the point that it's an emotional law, not necessarily a practical or right one.

Yep-:)
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,522
14,323
113
Low Earth Orbit
It's disappointing to see kids out doing fund raising to pay for a MADD CEO who takes home $6Million a year.

$6M would go a long way to increase awareness.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Nice sound bite.
That's your argument?



Because it raised an interesting question. If the accident rates/fatality rates for drivers below 0.10 are in fact very low, then why should society invest so much money and time dealing with the problem.
As I keep piointing out, there are more people involved than just the drivers. A point you keep avoiding. There are also passengers, pedestrians, injuries of drivers, passengers,, and pedestrians. You want to just keep talking about deaths of drivers, go ahead but you are ignoring a pile of facts.

I'm not calling you guys idiots.
Didn't say you were.
I'll leave the name calling to folks like you, JLM and CB.
lmao Holier-than-thou crap?
I just believe that like it or not, dollars do matter.
Yup, but it's a lot better to consider them when you include ALL the info rather than just deaths of drivers.

If the conclusion can be drawn from the stats (you have given) that 1% of traffic fatalities are caused by drinkers with that level of intoxication, then I would quite comfortably say too much.
Me, too ..... IF it were just drivers involved and didn't include injuries.

And without proper statistical data to back you up, it is nothing more than an emotional argument you are putting forth.
So come up with some of your own data, pilgrim. You're the one that asked for it.
And without including injuries and deaths of people other than just the drivers, you have a pretty lame argument.

I repeat:
Perhaps just the deaths of those driving between 0.05 and 0,08 are insignificant, but you tack on the injuries of them, the deaths and injuries of those that are simply passengers, plus the injuries and deaths of pedestrians and people in other vehicles, the number might add up to more than what you think.
And as I asked, how much of the money spent on drunk driving is actually spent on those drivers less than 0.10? I bet it's nowhere near the portion spent on those of more than 0.10.

How much money is spent on treating the deaths and injuries of these drivers, passengers, and pedestrians? Is it more than the modicum of money spent on catching the drivers below 0.10 and giving them 24 hour suspensions while trying to catch people who are very drunk? Medical care isn't cheap.

I have no need to rebut it. The comments made to me have nothing to do with the thread.
And numbers of people killed in AB because of housefires is? lol

True, but we are currently targeting those with between .05-.08 which is below the legal limit for impaired at huge cost in manpower. The only reason I can see for it is that the fine system they set up for it cannot be fought in court. For the most part this catches people with the money necessary to jump through the hoops while the chronics are still driving after multiple convictions often without licenses and sometimes unlicensed vehicles.
To date all the accidents I have been to where the driver was drunk he/she was around double the legal limit. These are the ones that need to be targeted.
They are being targeted, obviously. And in BC, ANYONE over 0.05 is targeted, not just drivers between 0.05 and 0.08.

I don't think society is well served by criminalizing its citizenry unless what they are doing is truly dangerous. To say that we want to arrest, imprison, and ruin some person because what they did resembled something that could be really dangerous if taken further, is a disservice in my opinion. If one drink doesn't cause me serious impairment, I deserve to judge for myself. Just like I have to judge for myself every single day if my mental impairment is too much to drive, if my vision is okay to drive. The only time the government should be worried about whether or not I can drive adequately is at licensing time, or when it is demonstrated on the road that I can not. Let's be honest, a lower limit is being putIto place because morons who break the law have continued to break the law despite the current limits in place. The only people who will be dinged by lower limits are people who wouldn't have driven drunk anyway.

Personally, I don't drive after even a glass of wine. My mental clarity isn't at the best sober, I definitely dont need to risk it. I've seen the results of drunk driving, and I don't want to be a cautionary tale. But, I highly doubt that ruining the lives of people who have two beer and then drive, is going to make our roads any safer. It's lip service.
Good point but then the lower limits are why cops are given the permission to use discretion. Most people below 0.10 are not treated the same as those over. Cops have weapons like 24 hour suspensions and stuff.
 
Last edited:

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Good point but then the lower limits are why cops are given the permission to use discretion. Most people below 0.10 are not treated the same as those over. Cops have weapons like 24 hour suspensions and stuff.

I've seen one friend lose his license for blowing .08 while he sat in the passenger seat of his truck waiting for keys please. They even showed up asking for him by name as the cops were arresting him. So counting on the discretion of police just doesn't cut it for me. Freedom and livelihood shouldn't hinge on whether a cop decides he's had a bad day or not.