CANADA'S TOUGHEST IMPAIRED DRIVING PENALTIES START SEPT. 20

[manic29]

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.

He sees the light!

To Mr. F and glenn, regarding the cost of healthcare, then I guess we should not be allowed to do any "dangerous" activity because society ends up paying for the hospital stay.
No rock climbing
No skiing
No skydiving
No mountainbiking
No motorcycling
No scuba diving
No hiking (bear attacks, bee stings, snake bites, etc)
No running (twisted ankles, high impact)
No swimming
No drinking alcohol (liver)
No smoking (lungs)
No eating fat or salt (heart)
Only the bubble life for you.

No thanks! That's no life.
I believe in personal responsibility. The lowest common denominator should not dictate the law.

[delicat]

I believe in personal responsibility. The lowest common denominator should not dictate the law.

I'm not sure if I follow you?

Are you saying if someone is dumb enough to ride a motorcycle without an helmet and crash with severe head injury I should be partly responsible for his health care cost? I'd say tuff shit! Let his family care for him (if they do care)... Our weak governement already allowed some "religious groups" to ride motorcycle without an helmet since it doesn't suit their needs. Oh, don't get me started!

It's not a question of "You're not allowed to do anything anymore" but of the greatest denominator as you said. We need to get out of our backyard and see if we can learn from other people in the world. But don't get me wrong, if it has no or minimal impact on the rest of us then let it be.

What I'm saying is there's a way to have fun without hurting your neighbour...

[glenn]

You're missing the point manic29. Extreme sports are generally governed by rigid sets of precautions and rules - the more dangerous, the more precautions. Skydiving deaths, for example, are extremely rare. Does this take the fun out of them, no.
On the other hand - more than 100 people die EACH DAY in the US in car crashes. That's like a airline crash everyday. After just one drink, you are as much as 7 times more likely to get in a crash.

When you live in any society, you can't always do whatever you want - especially when your actions have consequences for others. Let's look at the other extreme - imagine for a minute what it would be like if everyone could do whatever they want. It simply would not work.

Remember that driving is a privilege and not a right. If I'm going to be injured doing something risky, I want it to be something fun - not driving home with impaired judgement.

[jessef]

I'm all for stopping drunks on the road, but it's just paranoid to say that having a beer or a glass of wine with dinner and then driving is dangerous... The measure has to be the level of intoxication not just consumption. What's next - no driving for a week after a beer?

you should be able to go out to a restaurant, have dinner and a glass of wine with your lovely wife, and drive home.

Hey you two above and anyone else who thinks a nice glass of wine over dinner and then driving home is fine.

My girlfriend is tanked after one glass of wine. Enough that she cannot drive.

It's only one glass.

Would you guys feel comfortable putting your loved ones in the passenger seat of my girlfriend's car after she's had a glass of wine ?

I didn't think so.

We have friends in VPD and RCMP. Passed around the breathalizer a few times and my girlfriend always passes after a glass. The guys can't believe it that she passes the legal limit but her driving judgement is shot.

Everyone is different and bodies/brains react differently to alcohol no matter how small or large the consumption.

I advocate very strict punishment if caught drinking and driving before or after getting into an accident.

Breathalizer is useless for many types of people like my girlfriend.

The old school test with physical movements, speech and on the spot thinking is the by far the best tool for law enforcement.

[konadog]

Personally I haven't been so drunk I can't pass a breath or roadside sobriety test for over ten years. I drink pretty much everyday, but never more than a beer or a glass of wine - If I were to drink more I wouldn't drive. And I see now they are looking for ways to find pot smokers too - Bring on the roadside test for that one! This does not mean I am in favour of being lenient on impaired drivers - not at all; like I said above, I'm all for road safety and not endangering others, but laws need to be based on science and reality, not knee jerk responses and witch hunt mentality.
So yeah, I still think having a beer or a glass of wine with dinner and then driving in fine.

[jessef]

So yeah, I still think having a beer or a glass of wine with dinner and then driving in fine.

Maybe for you but what about people who really have their judgement affected after a beer or glass of wine ?

Here's the dilemma.

Take two people.

You may be fine and clear judgement to drive after a few beers or glasses of wine.

The other person may be woozy after one beer or glass of wine.

Whom does the onus fall upon to make the call whether one or the other is 'safe' to drive ?

If it were up to each individual (like you think having a beer or glass of wine is fine for anyone), then we would have chaos and a high death tally on the roads.

That's my point. If you can't put trust in each and every person that grabs a beer or glass of wine and drives, then someone has to set a limit or do something. This is where the law comes in.

Sure, it puts a blanket law over everyone, but that's the only way it can work.

If you disagree with me, please re-read my post above regarding putting anyone you love in the passenger seat of someone who's judgement is impaired to the point where they can't drive properly.

There are only two sides to this coin.

Either you don't care at all or you do.

There is no 'middle ground'.

If you think a beer/glass of wine is fine before driving, then you put yourself and everyone else on the road at risk by that statement.

If you think a beer/glass of wine is not fine for 'everyone' before driving, then you eliminate the potential risk of an accident caused by someone who had just one beer or glass of wine.

I think my point is very clear and really can't be argued.

It's one or the other. Kind of like Green1's deals.

[konadog]

Black and white eh? You sound like George W. and his "Yer with us or yer with the terrorists" rant. "My point can't be argued" wtf? You get the final word just because you say you do? *shakes head* A discussion is just that - a discussion. Just because I think .08 is an adequate limit does not make me soft on drunk driving and I rather resent you implying that it does with your dismissive tone.
But you are right with where the law comes in - that's precisely why we have blood/alcohol limits. Lower them to .05 - Fine by me. That still allows for a drink with dinner.
My final word is that I will not stop having that beer or wine WITH food and then drive afterwards. If the law changes to no alcohol permitted then I'll drink water, but not because I think it's dangerous.

[FalcoColumbarius]

Ah...... Some of you guys should consider moving to El Salvador if you seriously feel zero tolerance is the way to run a society. In El Salvador your first DUI offence is your last. Bang.

Canada was founded on the Four Cardinal Virtues, one corner being "Tolerance". Canada has had documented incidents of brutality ~ Somalia, WWI, Boer War... there's more ~ but we have aspired to a Noble society, which involves Tolerance. We all should all be responsible for ourselves, to be sure.

Imagine this: You come off the bridge to find a road block. The guy two cars in front of you is told to pull his vehicle over to the side as you move up in the line you roll your window down to talk with the COP, only to hear: "but constable I only had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner!!"... as he dragged out of his car; is kicked behind the legs and dropped to his knees; you see the Tech 9mm come out of the holster; BLAM!

Hmm. Would that make me feel safer on the roads?

Falco.

[psilosin]

Jesse it sounds to me like you need to get your wife a membership at a bar so she can start a workout routine. It makes me sad these days now that drinking has been removed from public schools...so many kids running around that get pissed off of one drink...its a national embarrassment.

[jessef]

It's one or the other. Kind of like Green1's deals.

Holy cow you guys.

You should already know by now over the years that this " " means I'm being sarcastic. Sheesh !


There's nothing wrong with my woman. She just can't handle wine. She's Russian and can drink me under the table with vodka and beer but for some reason wine doesn't go well with her system.

Just like many other people.

You guys never really responded to my 'hypothetical' question.

Since you think it's cool to have a beer/wine before you hit the road, would you feel comfortable with my girlfriend behind the wheel like I said above ?

If not, then here's the million dollar question.

Who determines what each person's limit is ?

I pass with 2-3 beers and my judgement is not affected unless it's 40 degrees out and I haven't eaten all day.

This brings up another thing. We're not robots. Our body changes throughout the day depending on health, food intake, etc... So one day you may be fine after a few beers while another day you're not.

So. Riddle me this you smart aleck's.

Who are you to determine what is acceptable for yourself with regards to drinking and driving ?

If you believe that you know exactly when your judgement is impaired or not, then everybody else should as well.

You're not any different or special.

So going by that, let's just leave the drinking and driving limit up to each individual person. Let them decide how much they've had to drink and if they think they are fine to drive.

Let's get our whole country doing that for a few weeks and see what happens.

I hate the government with a passion. But let's get real. When it comes to drugs, which alcohol is one of the worst, there needs to be some kind of limit or law to follow.

Kind of a catch-22 but then again so are most laws and that's what we get for living within a society. If you don't like it, move out in the woods.

Personally, I love the woods, Belgium beers and a good deep red wine.

[konadog]

I hate the government with a passion. But let's get real. When it comes to drugs, which alcohol is one of the worst, there needs to be some kind of limit or law to follow.

There IS a law about drinking and driving right now! Over .08 and you're breaking it...
Same law applies to your girlfriend. And I know a number of people who I'd rather not be driving even when sober - some people are just bad drivers...

[delicat]

Actually Jesse, your girlfriend would also get charged with impaired driving even if she doesn't blow .08

There's 2 distinctive charges;
Driving over .08
Driving while impaired (both alcool or drugs)

For me it's not all black and white, the major point I brought is that it first affect your judgement. One drink in some countries and you loose your licence. Result: they barely have any issues with people getting killed or injured (being the drunk drivers or the poor victims). I'd take this harsh approach to save a loved one if that's what it took.

Here we are fortunate to still be allowed a drink before driving. Maybe two if you're over 200lbs (it's as much a question of metabolism, physical shape and/or size, time since last drink and many other aspects...) and I'm ok with it but I'd also be fine with none allowed.

The problem isn't with most but with the few, especially the younger ones where our judgement is already pretty shitty without any drinks! And get these to start drinking, how to tell the limit?
First drink you're fine, judgement goes down just a bit.
2nd drink you may be fine, judgement starts to make you think you're good for another.
3rd drink you're hooped, judgement tells you go ahead, you're better off then when you started...
Crash!


So I'm happy to see this law in effect but I'd hope they'd also bring even more education for the younger generation.

On a side note, in Dennmark they realized that young drivers are the stupid ones (we've all been there, don't argue). So they give them 2 points to get started. Speed once and loose your licence for a period. After a year of good driving you get 3 points and so on. I thought it was pretty decent idea...

Anyway,
Take my beer away but let me drive my RHD!!!

Cheers,
D

[bassnailer]

...must not put beer in the cool box...must not put beer in the cool box...

[RichD]

Wow a lot of posts on this since I last checked in.

I am not sure what the timeline is for BC impaired driving laws versus where I grew up (Quebec) but what I do know is that, ever since before I was a driver (i.e. over 20 years ago) it has been a faux pas to drive after recently consuming alcohol. I clearly remember the adults accommodating this at family functions without complaint when I was growing up, and I also clearly remember my school mates taking steps not to drive drunk in high school. That is where my attitudes were formed, and why I take a hard line on impaired driving. Was that a localized experience or an example of how the culture differs, I can't say.

The point of this policy is to improve the quality of life, and the security of our society. We need to promote positive responsible attitudes in young people, who are at the greatest risk here.

I don't know if BC is behind the times or leading the charge, but I am all for stricter impaired driving policy. I have never felt put out by waiting before driving after a drink or two, nor have I heard anyone complain about that in my entire adult life... so I am having a hard time empathizing with those complaints.

My advice is to stop complaining about inevitable change and evolve.

[FalcoColumbarius]

Does our society really need more security? Are we not Canadians: True, North, Strong & Free?

Of course we need to promote responsibility ~ it is the basis of our social structure and the foundation of Common Law.

You keep inferring that we want to drive whilst we're pissed ~ this is not true. The legal alcohol level is currently .08, that is not tipsy let alone drunk. Lowering the alcohol level to .05 will make no difference other than providing the authorities with a potential cash grab by fining people who read .08, which is not drunk and which is the original point that manic29 was making. There will always be individuals who believe they are okay, despite the fact they have just sunk a Scarborough Suitcase, even if you lower the limit to "no driving for 24 hours if you come within four blocks of an open pub". Perhaps it would be more responsible of the authorities to introduce alcohol education programmes into grade ten classes, that explain the pros and cons of alcohol, although I would imagine that the powers that currently be would wish to clinically prove to the class that it is the work of the devil and a sure way to ..... name your poison. This way we would create superior humans, that don't think for themselves.

Falco.