CANADA'S TOUGHEST IMPAIRED DRIVING PENALTIES START SEPT. 20

[glenn]

Wow, stop being such a bunch of babies! This law is aimed at the "I'm OK to drive" mentality. As for all the other distractions while driving - stop doing them too! And while you're at it, stop speeding. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not die in a car.

You want to pick on a crappy new law - look at bill C-32 being rammed through by baby-man James Moore. It gives us US style copyright law where tech giants like apple are given more rights than either the creators or consumers of copyrighted material. Lets say you spend $1000 on content for your shiny new ipad. In a year, you want to switch to a kindle. Kiss all that legally purchased copyrighted content good bye because apple has put a digital lock on it. Bill C-32 makes it criminal for you to break the lock - even with the blessing of the creator of the material, and even though in good faith you purchased the material, and even though you are only using it for personal use! Who does this protect? - not the creators of the content, not you - but the tech giants like apple.

It baffles me sometimes the things people get worked up over. This law is quietly taking away your rights as a consumer, or as a copyright holder - while giving these giant tech companies unprecedented control over what content you consume, and how you consume it.

The irony is that while people whine and complain about the fact that now you can only drink one beer before you drive rather than two, they will happily line up to give away their rights and money to companies like apple in exchange for the latest shiny object. - and I saw you all drooling over the in dash install of an ipad - talk about driver distraction!

[RichD]

How about it being illegal to drive when you're tired?

It is. Review the impaired driving rules, as well as the guidance for drivers provided by ICBC regarding distractions in the vehicle.

ANY impairment is negligent. I support stiff penalties as a disincentive.

[RichD]

I'm on my mobile so I haven't read all the posts yet but this topic came up in conversation today and I thought of an example that illustrates my reasoning on this.

Bicycle helmet laws. I don't support them. The only person who is exposed to risk from a cyclist without a helmet on is the cyclist himself. This is where I think Falco's ethic applies well. Don't tell me how to ride a bike. That is an imposition on my freedoms that I won't abide.

But impaired driving is different because we are directly targeting risk to OTHERS. This is where I expect the state to exercise policy that deters and penalizes dangerous behaviour.


Perhaps this is a values debate more than a policy one. Well, you can't win a debate on values...

[glenn]

Bicycle helmet laws. I don't support them. The only person who is exposed to risk from a cyclist without a helmet on is the cyclist himself

I basically agree with you RichD, except that we are all, as a society, exposed to huge financial risk from a negligent head injury. This is often a life long burden, extending well beyond the immediate physical recovery. The fact is we take care of each other, and we don't leave our accident victims to care for themselves - in return, it is sensible to require a basic level precaution.

As a side note - I had a potentially serious accident on bike a few years back. I broke my collar bone, two ribs, and had some major road rash. I don't remember much of the actual crash - except for the sweet, sweet sound of my bike helmet skidding along the pavement!

[Mr. Flibble]

Bicycle helmet laws. I don't support them. The only person who is exposed to risk from a cyclist without a helmet on is the cyclist himself. This is where I think Falco's ethic applies well. Don't tell me how to ride a bike. That is an imposition on my freedoms that I won't abide.

I disagree with this simply because a portion of my money goes to support health care, and brain injury cases would increase my personal costs. Now, if the health care system were changed such that if you got into a motorcycle/bicycle accident and were not wearing a helmet, then you would not be covered by health care, then I would support that, natural selection in action.

However, I also think base healthcare is a general privilege, thus to prevent a condition of market failure I believe helmet laws should be mandatory. It is a question of weighing the privilege of health care (I believe every Canadian should have it) versus the privilege of riding without a helmet and incurring costs on the rest of Canadians.

I believe the privilege of health care carries greater weight between the two extremes.

[RichD]

Bicycle helmet laws. I don't support them. The only person who is exposed to risk from a cyclist without a helmet on is the cyclist himself. This is where I think Falco's ethic applies well. Don't tell me how to ride a bike. That is an imposition on my freedoms that I won't abide.

I disagree with this simply because a portion of my money goes to support health care

The same point easily applies to impaired driving laws, but there is a reason I didn't take that tack. Its an easily dismantled argument and leads down another slippery slope. Driving is the most dangerous activity we engage in, so by your logic... we should ban driving.

[glenn]

What? we should ban driving! That would pretty much take care of all the challenges facing the globe at the moment:
environmental degradation
pollution and oil spills
bad city planning
wars over oil
shopping malls

But that would be crazy, how would all the people get around?

P.S. We really do need a water cooler for this forum.

[mararmeisto]

But that would be crazy, how would all the people get around?

Got two feet? One in front of the other, repeat as required.

[roadie]

Hmmmmm....I wont weigh in too heavily on this subject, but if a person is an adult according to the law, they should be treated as one. If you can legally drive, smoke, drink, vote, buy lottery tickets and nasty, and die for your country, you should be able to go out to a restaurant, have dinner and a glass of wine with your lovely wife, and drive home. If people are in fact babies at 21 years of age, they should be treated across the board as such.

[Mr. Flibble]

P.S. We really do need a water cooler for this forum.

Hear hear! :)

Got two feet? One in front of the other, repeat as required.

How do I turn?!

[roadie]

Since when is p0rn a flagged word ???
Nasty ???? you gotta be joking !!!!!

[delicat]

Hello fellow worshippers.

The problem with alcool and drug is that it first affect your judgement, not your reflex or others. I hate when the governements come putting their paws in my pie but I would like to know how many can honestly say they never drove impaired. I'm sure you thought you were fine but...

Here's a very simple solution to this issue;

Change "Don't drink and drive" for "Drink, don't drive" That should keep everyone happy.

Hum, have you had a good friend or family member killed by a drunk driver? I've seen it, it sucks.

In Europe people smoke everywhere even if there's kids nearby... I was in a playground with my kids today and this idiot light up a cigarette and smoked up all the kids playing by. I was ready to have a fit with him. I consider ourself very lucky to have such a powerful ingerance about non-smoking in public areas and would consider this guy smoking in a playground pretty dumb.
I was in Norway last year, they have a zero (0%) tolerance. People adapted very well with this and they look at you in a bad way if you drink even a beer then drive. Just like the way we look at people smoking around kids... It's a mentality I guess.

Remember... Drink, don't drive!

Cheers,
David

[glenn]

Drink, don't drive!

Nicely put! - makes it an either/or statement but keeps the fun of drinking first.

[Chewy]

Fun fact: Australia has had .05 as the legal limit for years, and they loves 'em some booze.

If you're going to drink, just plan not to drive. Sure, it's a little nanny society , but all rules, bans and other legal limitations are based on the lowest common denominator... I'm also from the a generation that consists primarily of lowest common denominators.. you know, tribal tattoos, f350, steroids, etc. So I can honesty say that not only is the rule just better to try and deter "Chad" from driving his lifted deathmobile stone pissed, but also, it's nominally lower than it currently is.

[FalcoColumbarius]

...P.S. We really do need a water cooler for this forum.

You will find one in "The Last Word Café", General Discussion.

Falco.