Drunk driving laws
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
I think drunks have to shoulder a bit of the responsibility themselves, like leave that bar at 1:45 to be sure to catch the 2 AM bus. :lol::lol::lol::lol:
Toronto has a "nightclub industry", which the city receives taxes and other spin off from, the city also has a subway system that can efficiently move these people in & out of the downtown core but they choose to shut it down before people even leave the bars. So much for the "safe way home"
What ticks me off is if I have a few brew in the afternoon and then want to go fishing in the evening, I can get nailed and lose my drivers licence even if I row my motorboat out to a good spot near my dock. I don't think that is fair, especially considering when a drunk with no licence is fishing from his boat he isn't penalized as severely.
Do you still want to curtail the ones who do? I'd say most 18 year girls do drive responsibly. That opens the door to discrimination based on gender. The proper solution is to deal with the ones who act irresponsibly and leave the rest alone. An analogy would be that most machete killings are done by East Indians, so we just prohibit East Indians from owning machetes.
So you think a person under the influence should have control of a boat? :lol::lol::lol:
When I was young I drove in an alcoholic stupor from Wawa, Ont. to Sault Ste. Marie, during night, and when the rising sun in my eye woke me, and I could not remember an inch of the 200+ miles I drove, I had an Epiphany.
After that episode, I NEVER drove after I drank even one beer, ever again.
After that episode, I NEVER drove after I drank even one beer, ever again.
I have mixed feelings on this. Having cleaned up the aftermath of several drunk drivers I am all for getting them off the road, but the conics just drive without a license. The new rules are definitely a tax measure not a punishment since you do not get to see a judge until months after your suspension. The vehicle will be impounded regardless of who the registered owner is, even rentals which could push the bill up into the ten grand range all without benefit of a trial. Where we Kind of like expropriating property they think was proceeds of crime. Looks more like a gift to trial lawyers. Overall it will just make cops into tax collectors instead of going out and catching real criminals.
In many parts of B.C. there is no public transit, including taxis so getting a ride could be hard.live the local watering hole is about 5k one way and the nearest taxi is about 15 the other way so don't expect prompt service.
Perhaps when they see how much revenue is lost due to lower booze sales the law will be changed.
In many parts of B.C. there is no public transit, including taxis so getting a ride could be hard.live the local watering hole is about 5k one way and the nearest taxi is about 15 the other way so don't expect prompt service.
Perhaps when they see how much revenue is lost due to lower booze sales the law will be changed.
I've had several such epiphanies, the last one 25 years ago. Thank God I've never hurt anyone. Since then I haven't driven after having anything to drink. That is the only 100% safe way to do it. People who drink even a couple of glasses of wine with dinner are just sticking their necks out. What happens if a child runs out in front of your car and gets hit, even though the fault is totally his but you've had had something to drink?
Yes, if the goal is to save lives.
The cops will have the power roadside to ruin a person's life, even if below the existing legal limit and not proven in a court of law. I would like to curtail unethical legislation. If they want to save lives lets save them, but this is just a tax grab.
I see your point, exactly BUT I think what we are being told is that drunk drivers are "real criminals". I think one cop on the news put it pretty plainly - if you are going out drinking plan your trip both ways in advance. If I thought for a moment that my going out drinking would put someone's safety at peril I would do my drinking at home. I think that is the message they are trying to convey. As far as car rentals go I don't think responsible people rent cars to go drinking. :lol::lol::lol:
As bad as a "tax grab" is I think it pales in comparison to someone being killed by a drunk driver or even someone being killed by someone who only blows 0.05.
drunks are not going to remember the bus times, or even
bother to take a bus after he/she has had too many, they
will just get in their car, act like a blithering idiot,
think they are most efficient, not think at all, try to
find the ignition with key, somewhow remember where gas
pedal is, and drive off with a brain that is mush, and
immediately put many people in vicinity in danger.
Increasing public transic will help many, but not the
idiots who will drive anyway. The restriction put on
teenagers in recent years are very good, and will continue
to improve if needed. My grandkids are in the process of
learning to drive and I am watching what they have to go
through before they have a 'free' licence, so those who
abuse those laws will be punished.
It is also very very expensive to licence a teenage boy,
and parents foot that bill (usually), and it is their
responsibility as well to monitor their kids.
Much much better than when I was a teenager driving, many
drunk driving incidents back then, no seat belts, and many
fewer laws to protect others.
I don't agree with a law to prohibit teenagers from getting
licences, as you would punish all the good teenagers, as
it is the irresponsible males who would ruin it for everyone
else. Many teenagers need to get to work after school,
and have many responsibilities in life, and are mature and
responsible.
bother to take a bus after he/she has had too many, they
will just get in their car, act like a blithering idiot,
think they are most efficient, not think at all, try to
find the ignition with key, somewhow remember where gas
pedal is, and drive off with a brain that is mush, and
immediately put many people in vicinity in danger.
Increasing public transic will help many, but not the
idiots who will drive anyway. The restriction put on
teenagers in recent years are very good, and will continue
to improve if needed. My grandkids are in the process of
learning to drive and I am watching what they have to go
through before they have a 'free' licence, so those who
abuse those laws will be punished.
It is also very very expensive to licence a teenage boy,
and parents foot that bill (usually), and it is their
responsibility as well to monitor their kids.
Much much better than when I was a teenager driving, many
drunk driving incidents back then, no seat belts, and many
fewer laws to protect others.
I don't agree with a law to prohibit teenagers from getting
licences, as you would punish all the good teenagers, as
it is the irresponsible males who would ruin it for everyone
else. Many teenagers need to get to work after school,
and have many responsibilities in life, and are mature and
responsible.
My son just missed out on the graduated license idea. But I did teach him well. I have noticed that more than half of the bad driving I see is done with an N on the car. So something is not getting through. I think that making driver training mandatory is a good idea and should be taught in school.I took it in the early 70's and I could already drive an off highway logging truck before I had a car license. Also went to a driving school to get a class I license even though I didn't have to.
Still does nothing to stop drunks though.
Instead of the proposed tax grab for DUI mandatory time riding third on an ambulance on weekends might be a good idea along with a fine and suspension.
Taxslave, you mention that it makes the cops into tax collectors instead of real criminal catchers. A drunk driver can become a "real" criminal in seconds. Probably one of the more important catches they make in a day is to take a drunk driver off the road. Cops have always gone after impaired drivers. Nothing has changed there and nothing much will change anyway. The charge goes on your D.L. as a record and there is no way of renewing your D.L. without paying the fine. I could be wrong but I don't think you can renew your insurance without paying the fine. I don't think the onus is on a city or a municipality to provide public transportation. Everyone knows if they are going to have a drink or not and the onus is on the individual to make their own arrangements for a ride. People have a few choices. Arrange to stay at the place you are going for drinks (if that is possible)/ arrange for a designated driver/ arrange with someone to pick you up (someone who won't mind getting up at all hours of the morning to get you home safely and keep the public safe). I'm a non-drinker and I have little sympathy for anyone who drinks and drives. Far too many sober people have died at the hands of a drunk driver. Liquor sales won't drop.
Those bad teens again. Why does everyone just blame the teenagers? They are not the only ones who drink and drive. They are inexperienced drivers for sure but - does a drunk driver exhibit any more experience driving drunk than a teen does? Over the past few days the weather here has been great. The drivers - not so great. They are young drivers but I often see young men in particular weaving in and out of traffic trying to show how fast they can get to somewhere. They are not alone though. Young women can speed around just as much as the guys and I would make a pretty good guess at saying most of the people I see are in their mid 20's or more. I once worked with a young man who said he was going to apply to be a cop. I thought he would make a good candidate. After 3 years of watching him, what I saw was a lazy kid who drives like a maniac. Everyone matures at a different level.