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.