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

CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
re: Driving ban for life after DUI? Drunk driving - from it is OK to execution, ect....

Cannuck said:
Not handy but I'm sure I could dig it up if need be.
Click to expand...
Please do.

With just your word, we don't have all the facts.

You have zero credibility here.
 
Goober

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
re: Driving ban for life after DUI? Drunk driving - from it is OK to execution, ect....

Cannuck said:
Still can't find any facts I see.

It's quite simple really. What percentage of alcohol related deaths are caused by people with a BAC under 0.10?
Click to expand...

Look for it yourself.
 
Cannuck

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Re: Driving ban for life after DUI?

L Gilbert said:
Nope.Post it then. Besides, a suggestion is just that. Anything can suggest anything almost.
Click to expand...

There really is no need for me to post it.

Some people wish to throw other people in jail for driving with a BAC of 0.80. These people should provide evidence that driving with a BAC of 0.80 is sufficiently dangerous enough that it warrants a jail term. It shouldn't be that difficult for you, Goober, Madd or anybody else that wishes to strip others of their freedom to simply show me some data that indicates people with a BAC less than 0.10 are causing lots of accidents.
 
L Gilbert

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Re: Driving ban for life after DUI?

Cannuck said:
There really is no need for me to post it.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I expected that comment, too. It means you have no argument and no credibility.

Cannuck said:
Nope I gave you the read for your childish "Comprehension problems today?" I just clicked on the wrong post by mistake.
Click to expand...
That's your story and your sticking with it. Yeah, heard that before.
 
Cannuck

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Goober said:
Look for it yourself.
Click to expand...

I have....many times. I can't find it. The only thing I found close was the Australian study.

One really has to wonder why people would support spending millions of taxpayers dollars going after people in the 0 - 0.10 BAC range without seeing any statistics that these people are causing accidents and death.
 
L Gilbert

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
"There is evidence that even drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level between 0.2 and 0.4 mg/ml are 1.4 times more likely to be involved in crashes than those who have not been drinking. Involvement in fatal crashes is much more likely for drivers with BAC levels over 0.5 mg/ml than in drivers who have not consumed alcohol (Blomberg et al., 2009; GRSP, 2007; Zador, 1991; Zador, Krawchuk, & Voas, 2000)." - 16. Blood Alcohol Concentration Limits

Still waiting for this research mentioned by Cannucklehead
 
Cannuck

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Re: Driving ban for life after DUI?

L Gilbert said:
Yeah. I expected that comment, too. It means you have no argument and no credibility.
Click to expand...

Of course I have an argument. The Australian study is completely irrelevant to my position. You wish to have the legal system deal with people that drive with a BAC of 0.80. I'm merely asking for some statistical evidence that they are a danger to me. Assuming the Australian study did not exist, how would that change my argument or request?
 
L Gilbert

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Re: Driving ban for life after DUI?

Cannuck said:
Of course I have an argument. The Australian study is completely irrelevant to my position. You wish to have the legal system deal with people that drive with a BAC of 0.80. I'm merely asking for some statistical evidence that they are a danger to me. Assuming the Australian study did not exist, how would that change my argument or request?
Click to expand...
lmao Anything with a normal IQ and a modicum of logic is a danger to you.
 
Cannuck

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
lone wolf said:
When it involves taking chances you wouldn't when you're reasonable? Sure it does
Click to expand...

That is one of the questions raised by the Australian study. Did the willingness to take chances decrease initially. If I remember correctly, the accident rate began to spike significantly after BAC was greater than 0,10
 
Cannuck

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
lone wolf said:
I suppose if all you're being hit by is a study, there wouldn't be much of an issue.
Click to expand...

Well, MADD and their supporters use studies to push for throwing people in jail. I think faulty studies would be something you might think about with all the time you have to waste in jail.
 
CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Cannuck said:
Well, MADD and their supporters use studies to push for throwing people in jail. I think faulty studies would be something you might think about with all the time you have to waste in jail.
Click to expand...
I'm interested in your supposed study showing lower BAC causing operators to drive safer.

How's that coming?
 
L Gilbert

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
lol Well, if judgement and motor skills are impaired starting at 0.05 then I thought it'd be pretty obvious there's a danger. Also, if one doesn't consider an impairment of judgement and motor skills to be a danger, then they belong in a zoo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom