Who's asking for a redundant law?
Calling it a fact doesn't make it a fact.
Driving ban for life after DUI? Drunk driving - from it is OK to execution, ect....
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Who's asking for a redundant law?
Calling it a fact doesn't make it a fact.
True, it's evidence. The several studies that show the same thing make it a fact.
If fact, it's a whole lot strong than the make believe study you've yet to produce to back up...
I figured. I'd also like to see some stats on what percentage of people charged are over 0.10. I think that if 95% of the resources are used on the below 0.10 crowd and 95% of the problems are caused by the over 0.10 crowd, then maybe a change in tactic is required.
Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction
Excuses? Didn't offer any. To be honest, two of the three above that I know well
where a living Hell for their families and friends and employers and anyone that
came across their paths...& to this day I'm still shocked that they didn't kill anyone,
or have anyone kill them.
Excuses? Didn't offer any. To be honest, two of the three above that I know well
where a living Hell for their families and friends and employers and anyone that
came across their paths...& to this day I'm still shocked that they didn't kill anyone,
or have anyone kill them.
It's just as well that the law says 0.05 and allows cops to use discretion as rearranging the laws to say .1 and still allow cops to use discretion.
lol Argue it with those who researched it then. Still waiting for those "facts" you mentioned.
It's just as well that the law says 0.05 and allows cops to use discretion as rearranging the laws to say .1 and still allow cops to use discretion.
What I'm saying is raise it to 0.10 if the accident stats show that BAC levels below 0.10 are not a significant risk. There is no redundancy in that.
No problem. Can you point me to somebody that has done some research and found out what the accident rate and death rate in Canada is on drivers based on BAC level?
This guy I know. from Sudbury, six years ago....after getting out of minor traffic violations by showing his volunteer fireman's card....tried it after being gauged at over .08 one night........didn't work....even with his son-in-law on the force......
Now...at every opportunity....he rants about breath analyzer checks .......sound familiar????:lol:
"Slightly over five percent of fatally injured drinking drivers had a BAC between 50 mg% and 80 mg%" - A Quick Look at Alcohol-related Crashes in Canada - Transport Canada
And that's not including people that those drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 injurred or killed.
Um, wasn't hard to find the info, so I have no idea why you can't find a link to the "facts" you claimed.
I think 0.02 is the optimum level, that pretty well makes drinking impossible, but allows the guy to stay on the road who had too much Xmas cake!
Nothing new, there's a moron in every crowd, sometimes even small crowds.-
I guess if one has to resort to pack mentality to know common sense, well then ya: Spout statistics. All the sensible have to watch is the traffic.
Well that makes over 60 Reds in about a week. Nice to see that you misuse the Reps. And they make me laugh as you do not or cannot rebut. Such a sad little man.
Can I imagine an "oops" emitting from Cannucklehead? Of course I can.
aaawww Nuts. He rabbited.
Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction
Ah....OK. I was questioning the "could'a" but didn't justification. If you
see that as excusing anything, that's your call. Okily Dokily then. :lol:
Ah....OK. I was questioning the "could'a" but didn't justification. If you
see that as excusing anything, that's your call. Okily Dokily then. :lol:
Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction
Same reason why Pedos are not locked up for life- The Govt - Lib- Con- NDP will not do it.
Same reason why Pedos are not locked up for life- The Govt - Lib- Con- NDP will not do it.
From your link...
So if one was to apply the 5% across the board, it could mean that 37 people were killed in an MVC where one of the drivers was between 0.05 and 0.08. I know the stats doesn't say that but it is reasonable to deduce that the number would be fairly close. Since there are roughly 3000 traffic fatalities every year, we are talking about 1% of fatal accidents have BAC between 0.05 and 0.08 as a factor (note the word factor is used because it may not be the cause).
If anybody has an actual statistic, I'd love to see it.
..because I haven't looked. As I've said, the Australian study isn't really relevant to my point. If (and it hasn't really been established yet but if) 1% of traffic fatalities are caused by drinkers between 0.05 and 0.08 BAC, is the money we spend combating this problem wisely used? The next question would be, how much are we spending? I understand cost is of no concern to some people but I like value for my tax dollars.
I get the distinct feeling that you had a run in with the po lice over somethin lak this.
The numbers show the damages including death- you are playing games.
Impaired Driving - Fact Sheets
While Ontario has come a long way, impaired driving remains a serious problem:
•Every year, about 17,000 drivers are convicted of Criminal Code of Canada offences (including impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol concentration of more than 0.08, criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death, manslaughter, dangerous driving and failure to remain at the scene of a collision). It is estimated that approximately three quarters of those convictions are related to drinking and driving.
•Impaired drivers are involved in thousands of traffic collisions every year.
•Drunk driving accounts for almost 25% of all fatalities on Ontario’s roads.
•About 17,000 impaired driving incidents were reported by police in Ontario in 2005. In the same year, 174 people were killed and 3,852 were injured in motor vehicle collisions involving a drinking driver.
Drunk drivers get easy ride in Canada
Robert Solomon, a University of Western Ontario law professor and legal adviser for Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada, makes a solid case for a major overhaul of Canada's impaired-driving laws. Federal law is now so distorted by technical defences that police officers often will not lay a criminal charge even if there is evidence, Solomon said last week. This amounts, he said, to de-facto decriminalization of the country's impaired-driving laws.
This is the wrong way for Canada to be headed. The toll taken in lives lost and property damaged by impaired driving is huge.
Drunk driving takes more than three times as many lives a year as homicides. In 2003, alcohol and/or drugs were involved in 1,257 fatalities, 74,181 injuries, and 161,299 property-damage-only crashes. The total financial and social costs were estimated to run to $10.95 billion. This is, or should be, a national disgrace.
The numbers show the damages including death- you are playing games.
Impaired Driving - Fact Sheets
While Ontario has come a long way, impaired driving remains a serious problem:
•Every year, about 17,000 drivers are convicted of Criminal Code of Canada offences (including impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol concentration of more than 0.08, criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death, manslaughter, dangerous driving and failure to remain at the scene of a collision). It is estimated that approximately three quarters of those convictions are related to drinking and driving.
•Impaired drivers are involved in thousands of traffic collisions every year.
•Drunk driving accounts for almost 25% of all fatalities on Ontario’s roads.
•About 17,000 impaired driving incidents were reported by police in Ontario in 2005. In the same year, 174 people were killed and 3,852 were injured in motor vehicle collisions involving a drinking driver.
Drunk drivers get easy ride in Canada
Robert Solomon, a University of Western Ontario law professor and legal adviser for Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada, makes a solid case for a major overhaul of Canada's impaired-driving laws. Federal law is now so distorted by technical defences that police officers often will not lay a criminal charge even if there is evidence, Solomon said last week. This amounts, he said, to de-facto decriminalization of the country's impaired-driving laws.
This is the wrong way for Canada to be headed. The toll taken in lives lost and property damaged by impaired driving is huge.
Drunk driving takes more than three times as many lives a year as homicides. In 2003, alcohol and/or drugs were involved in 1,257 fatalities, 74,181 injuries, and 161,299 property-damage-only crashes. The total financial and social costs were estimated to run to $10.95 billion. This is, or should be, a national disgrace.
Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction
Maybe you should stop this catch and release program. Even when they are undersized.
If 25% of fatalities in Ontario what are caused by drunk drivers what excuse are the other 75% using?
Canuck has a valid point about the cost of quibbling over .05-.08. The half baked plan in BC is certainly set up as a cash grab as well as a way to circumvent the right of the accused to have a trial. Perhaps zero is the way to go but this sliding scale has got to stop.
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!-
Maybe you should stop this catch and release program. Even when they are undersized.
If 25% of fatalities in Ontario what are caused by drunk drivers what excuse are the other 75% using?
Canuck has a valid point about the cost of quibbling over .05-.08. The half baked plan in BC is certainly set up as a cash grab as well as a way to circumvent the right of the accused to have a trial. Perhaps zero is the way to go but this sliding scale has got to stop.