New Ontario Impaired Laws are another cash grab for the Insurance Folks
- Thread starter Retired_Can_Soldier
- Start date
Not only that but taking the vehicle away from a one car family because dad was drunk is just being ignorant for ignorance sake. I know of one guy that lives in a small town without even a grocery store. He got an impaired when he got out of his car in his own driveway. Wife and three kids left with no transportation. Only an ******* would support that
I don't necessarily agree with impounding the car for minor impairment. A fine should suffice for that.
People don't choose to get old and must work. People can choose to not consume alcohol. You see the difference?
I'm always getting my "Christmas time happy hour" hard egg nog after nine PM, these days, which is when the family taxi service finally shuts down.
I being drunk is as normal to some folk as shift work and aging, you may as well throw in the towel now
They do choose to drive. There's only a difference because you want there to be one. The issue is (or at least should be) ones driving ability. If it's not adequate, they should not be on the road regardless of the reason. A person killed by an impaired driver is just as dead if the impairment is caused by age or sleep deprivation as opposed to alcohol or drugs
An elderly person or a shift worker might have no choice but to drive to get around. We could argue the same for the drinker, but the drinker still chose to drink. If we can get the drinkers off of the road, that still reduces the overall risk since then we have only the elderly and shiftworkers to worry about. It's about the ability to choose. A person grows old and must work, but can choose to not consume alcohol. Maybe make an exception if he consumes alcohol as prescribed by a physician, again because it comes down to choice. If he must consume it for a medical condition, that might be different and we accept the risk within reason. He he can choose to not consume it, then why impose unnecessary risk?
If there is statistical evidence that supports the notion than people over 70 are a hazard on the road then we should address this problem. If there is statistical evidence that people with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.10 are a hazard on the road, we should address this problem. I haven't seen much evidence of either.
You don't do many extractions huh?
Are you having troubles comprehending the definition of impaired and trying to compare it to the Criminal Code charge of driving with a BAC over 0.8?
Are you having troubles comprehending the definition of impaired and trying to compare it to the Criminal Code charge of driving with a BAC over 0.8?
They still need some help in deciding they should not drive if they decide to drink. Most places now have attending a class that would be classified as 'rehab' as a 'must' and this just takes it to a new level. The rest of the time the VR equipment would be teaching aids to the different classes of driving permits without the need to put people into actual traffic and that could prepare an Albertan tourist to whiz around the cities in the east like it was his own backyard. (at least know how to use gps driving aids)
Neither is running into things you shouldn't be running into.
You folks really need to hone up on English and the judgement process of what can leads to an "impairment" of the mind and body.
I'm not a dentist so I don't do any extractions.
I'm well aware of the difference between impairment and blowing over. The reason for setting the limit is based on the flawed logic that impairment equals risk. That risk had been clearly shown when BAC rises above 0.10.
As I alluded to in regards to the study I read years ago, driving risk actually drops between 0.05 and 0.10 despite increased impairment, much the same way it happens with seniors
Drinking AND talking or changing the radio station or looking at some hot person or etc.
Perhaps ejection seats are the way to go above a certain speed.
Perhaps ejection seats are the way to go above a certain speed.