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

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Re: Texas man gets life sentence after third DWI conviction

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

I would think MADD is a big part of the problem because they are also victims of impaired driving and know what they are talking about and don't buy the idea of it being alright to drive with 0.10 as long as you don't kill an inordinate number of people. -:)
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
The other problem for America is they don't have a pro active view of medical issues either measures
that could confine and treat this person.

Oh can it and get off your high horse for once. How many threads have been in here of Canadians getting their wrist slapped for rape and murder. No wonder why you don't have a prison population problem. They're all walking the streets among you.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Oh can it and get off your high horse for once. How many threads have been in here of Canadians getting their wrist slapped for rape and murder. No wonder why you don't have a prison population problem. They're all walking the streets among you.

Yes and No- Prison is necessary for dangerous people where there is no alternative solution and for rape and murder I fully agree with you, in most cases. Throwing people in jail for lesser offenses is often counter productive.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Yes and No- Prison is necessary for dangerous people where there is no alternative solution and for rape and murder I fully agree with you, in most cases. Throwing people in jail for lesser offenses is often counter productive.

Erase the penal code then. Why make it a crime if there is no punishment?
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
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).
And again, that does not include injured or killed people that were not drivers or vehicle occupants. On top of that, if having a 0.05 limit + police discretion keeps even just 1% from becoming 2% of injuries and fatalities, it's worth it. I happen to think lives are more important than inconveniences.

If anybody has an actual statistic, I'd love to see it.
I found that link so it must be your turn to do some digging.



..because I haven't looked. As I've said, the Australian study isn't really relevant to my point.
What's the point in dragging it out then?
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.
Well, whomever doesn't like their $s wisely spent is an idiot.
But, anyway, how much spent overall on the drinking & driving program is spent on the drivers between 0.05 and 0.08? Or how much spent on them below 1.0? Good luck figuring it out. But for my bucks, I like having the 0.05 limit + police discretion. So, like I said, you want to gamble your life on whether someone whose judgement and motor skills are impaired or not, go right ahead. I'll fight any legislation to change the existing limit.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Actually, they don't. Near as I can tell, deaths from people driving with a BAC of less than 0.10 are insignificant...certainly not worth the dollars spent trying to deal with the issue. You keep posting stats about "drunk driving" and nowhere have I said it isn't a problem. I just think, given the evidence that I have seen, the problem is with people over 0.10.
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.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
I happen to think lives are more important than inconveniences.

Nice sound bite.

What's the point in dragging it out then?

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.

Well, whomever doesn't like their $s wisely spent is an idiot.

I'm not calling you guys idiots. I'll leave the name calling to folks like you, JLM and CB. I just believe that like it or not, dollars do matter.


But, anyway, how much spent overall on the drinking & driving program is spent on the drivers between 0.05 and 0.08? Or how much spent on them below 1.0?

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.

Good luck figuring it out. But for my bucks, I like having the 0.05 limit + police discretion. So, like I said, you want to gamble your life on whether someone whose judgement and motor skills are impaired or not, go right ahead. I'll fight any legislation to change the existing limit.

And without proper statistical data to back you up, it is nothing more than an emotional argument you are putting forth.

I would think MADD is a big part of the problem because they are also victims of impaired driving and know what they are talking about and don't buy the idea of it being alright to drive with 0.10 as long as you don't kill an inordinate number of people. -:)

They are a special interest group that depends on emotional arguments to generate revenue. Like most special interest groups they probably started out with good intentions but eventually the need for donations become an ever increasing focus.

You're wasting your time with this goof, Goober, any idiot who thinks any number of deaths over zero is insignificant has to be a first class A-hole.

What's your opinion on fire deaths? How much do you want to spend to bring the number to zero?

Statistical Data - Fire Busters Inc.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
You can try to discuss with him til the cows come home - and what do you get- nada- the same questions - slightly changed- He is just trolling this thread which is one of many that he trolls.
Like his golf game - always in the woods peering out.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
You can try to discuss with him til the cows come home - and what do you get- nada- the same questions - slightly changed- He is just trolling this thread which is one of many that he trolls.
Like his golf game - always in the woods peering out.

Perhaps you can go check out other threads if this one doesn't interest you.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
There may be one other "bad habit" that causes accidents, I think B.J.s while driving should be outlawed. -:)

" Near as I can tell, deaths from people driving with a BAC of less than 0.10 are insignificant..."

You're wasting your time with this goof, Goober, any idiot who thinks any number of deaths over zero is insignificant has to be a first class A-hole.

I think you and goober are misconstruing what Cannuck is saying. Deliberate or not don't know, don't care.
I think Cannuck is correct from what I have seen and anecdotal evidence from the papers and others. The majority of serious accidents where alcohol is a factor seem to be 2X the legal limit or better while much money is being spent on counter attack type programs that target the guy that had two beers after work and got caught in a roadblock, not in an accident. I think what Cannuck is trying to say is that perhaps we are not spending the money wisely but doing what is highly visible and gets votes. Much like spending thousands of dollars busting a kid for having a joint while literally tons of really bad drugs are imported into Canada every day.
We need to stop the chronic drinkers that have had multiple impaired convictions.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Nice sound bite.



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.

If - What do you have to back up the oft misused term "If".

Do you have Stats
Do you have links
All the evidence shows clearly the carnage caused by impaired drivers.

Oh and 1 other point - For impaired convictions Canada has a conviction rate of between 60 -70 % range. And many Police will not charge unless you blow 0.10 -

So stats that show alcohol related, but not impaired are flawed as anyone with a good lawyer has a good chance to get off. Reason they do are our laws in Canada are weak when compared to many Western democracies.

Pays to have a good lawyer. I know quite a few - if you ever need one - Just let me know.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Do you have Stats
Do you have links
All the evidence shows clearly the carnage caused by impaired drivers.

Actually, it doesn't and that is the point. I agree that reaction time and judgement degrade as BAC increases. Where we disagree is that that automatically means carnage on the road by those with BAC less than 0.10. I can't find any detailed stats. From a personal perspective, I've been to many alcohol related accidents as a firefighter and can't recall a single one where the driver was not obviously impaired (greater than 0.10)

Given the numbers posted by Les, it's not unreasonable to think 30 to 40 people a year are killed in alcohol related crashes involving drivers with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10.

Understanding Highway Crash Data


"Alcohol-related" is another arbitrary category. For example, the media often fail to explain to the public that NHTSA defines a fatal accident as "alcohol related" if either a driver or a nonoccupant, such as a pedestrian, had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater. The BAC threshold for a DWI arrest in most states is .10, or 10 times the amount at which an accident qualifies for the "alcohol-related" category.
This means that if a pedestrian who had been drinking steps off a curb and is struck by a sober driver, the accident is listed as "alcohol related." The deception continues when the term "drunk driving" is substituted for "alcohol related," even though in many of these accidents, the driver or drivers were not suffering any meaningful level of impairment.
The most significant cause of accidents is not speeding. It is not drunk driving and it is certainly not the trendy "road rage." The number one cause of automobile accidents is -- unglamourous as it may be -- inattentive driving or driver error.
For decades the motoring public has been deceived into thinking that traffic law enforcement can significantly improve highway safety. This enforcement philosophy ignores the causes of most accidents and relies on the myth that drunk driving, speeding and aggressive driving are the most frequent causes. Billions of dollars and countless years of labor have been fruitlessly expended based on this premise, with no proven results.


Pays to have a good lawyer. I know quite a few - if you ever need one - Just let me know.

I'll make a note of that. I don't know any criminal lawyers as I've never needed one. Why did you need yours?
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Actually, it doesn't and that is the point. I agree that reaction time and judgement degrade as BAC increases. Where we disagree is that that automatically means carnage on the road by those with BAC less than 0.10. I can't find any detailed stats. From a personal perspective, I've been to many alcohol related accidents as a firefighter and can't recall a single one where the driver was not obviously impaired (greater than 0.10)

Given the numbers posted by Les, it's not unreasonable to think 30 to 40 people a year are killed in alcohol related crashes involving drivers with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10.

Understanding Highway Crash Data


"Alcohol-related" is another arbitrary category. For example, the media often fail to explain to the public that NHTSA defines a fatal accident as "alcohol related" if either a driver or a nonoccupant, such as a pedestrian, had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater. The BAC threshold for a DWI arrest in most states is .10, or 10 times the amount at which an accident qualifies for the "alcohol-related" category.
This means that if a pedestrian who had been drinking steps off a curb and is struck by a sober driver, the accident is listed as "alcohol related." The deception continues when the term "drunk driving" is substituted for "alcohol related," even though in many of these accidents, the driver or drivers were not suffering any meaningful level of impairment.
The most significant cause of accidents is not speeding. It is not drunk driving and it is certainly not the trendy "road rage." The number one cause of automobile accidents is -- unglamourous as it may be -- inattentive driving or driver error.
For decades the motoring public has been deceived into thinking that traffic law enforcement can significantly improve highway safety. This enforcement philosophy ignores the causes of most accidents and relies on the myth that drunk driving, speeding and aggressive driving are the most frequent causes. Billions of dollars and countless years of labor have been fruitlessly expended based on this premise, with no proven results.




I'll make a note of that. I don't know any criminal lawyers as I've never needed one. Why did you need yours?

I have connections - on both sides.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
I think you and goober are misconstruing what Cannuck is saying. Deliberate or not don't know, don't care.
I think Cannuck is correct from what I have seen and anecdotal evidence from the papers and others. The majority of serious accidents where alcohol is a factor seem to be 2X the legal limit or better while much money is being spent on counter attack type programs that target the guy that had two beers after work and got caught in a roadblock, not in an accident. I think what Cannuck is trying to say is that perhaps we are not spending the money wisely but doing what is highly visible and gets votes. Much like spending thousands of dollars busting a kid for having a joint while literally tons of really bad drugs are imported into Canada every day.
We need to stop the chronic drinkers that have had multiple impaired convictions.

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.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
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.

Excellent post

I'd love to. Start another thread and we can discuss it at length until you "get tired" of it.
Nope. You have that ability?
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
What really got me inflamed with Cannuck was his mention of "insignificant deaths", meaning they weren't important.

They are unimportant when you are discussing policy. There are as many people killed in house fire in Alberta alone then are killed by BAC 0.08 - 0.10 alcohol related accidents across Canada (extrapolating the numbers Les provided). House fire deaths could easily drop to zero but we don't enact the legislation required because of cost. That's why I bring up fire..because my argument applies to that as well. We do not have unlimited resources and we need to use them effectively.

All deaths are serious and I think everything reasonable should be done to try to eliminate them.

I agree. Where we disagree on what constitutes "reasonable".

Nope. You have that ability?

Yes I do, just not the desire.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Care to rebut this- Or is even the mention of your name in a neg way a reason. That shows yet again limited ability- you have no reason as to why I thought it was an excellent post. No reason at all but again demonstrates childishness.
And yes I laugh.

Not to mention ignorance!-:)
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta