Reply With QuoteI'm much more afraid of the idiot drivers than people who are .05. Is there any way to get them off the road? Maybe a roadside stupidity test?
|
|
**** the MADD tyranny
I'm much more afraid of the idiot drivers than people who are .05. Is there any way to get them off the road? Maybe a roadside stupidity test?
09 Victory Vegas 8 Ball
84 Yamaha XJ750 (sold)
84 Honda VT750(sold)
01 Suzuki Marauder 250 (sold)
When is the next provincial election again?
Yet another law completely founded on BS statistics...
My brother, who worked in statistical analysis for about a decade, researched this thoroughly and from what he found there was no conclusive proof of impairment when driving until 1.0.
Most states & provinces landed on .08 because they figured at .08 it was unlikely that people who'd just finished a drink immediately before they got in the car would exceed a 1.0 once the alcohol had metabolized.
So in other words, we're now penalizing people at 0.05, even though .08 was a buffered (safe) number already.
The ironic part is that it has been statistically proven that people are actually LESS likely to get in an accident with a SMALL amount of alcohol in their system. I assume this is because people pay extra attention to the road, knowing they've had a drink.
My brother also researched stats on the accuracy of police breathalyzers, the results scared the hell out of us. (This was a couple years ago ...so hopefully they've gotten better).
It seems that much like our good friend the Taser, most breathalyzers weren't calibrated the way they're supposed to be and can give readings that are wildly inaccurate. (Anecdotally, a friend of mine blew a 0.05 one night after drinking a single beer FOUR hours earlier, when he questioned the reading the officer told him they turn up the sensitivity during Christmas party season, he was fine, not to worry about it and to have a safe drive home).
Given the inaccuracy of breathalyzers and how low .05 is when breathalyers can be out/adjusted by up to ~.05, I'm not sure it's safe to have even one beer and drive anymore.
...and if you've used mouthwash? From what I hear it's too bad so sad, it's zero tolerance once the breathalyzer goes off, no roadside sobriety test anymore and no officer discretion allowed... Just fines, impounds and jail... (Unless you happen to get a 'cool' LEO, who uses common sense and ignores the 'rules'). This is even scarier when you find out that you are not legally entitled to a blood test to disprove breathalyzer findings.
If ignorance is bliss, then knock the smile off my face - Rage Against The Machine
Thinking? who's thinking, that's the problem, the countries run by morons, and voting is just a crap shoot on whom is the lesser evil. "None of the above" will never be seen on a ballot.Originally Posted by djbordie
Can someone explain to me why when your in the graduated license stage your allowed.. well hang on let's see 0 %alcohol nada zippo , zilch , but when you get your full G your allowed .08 % alcohol. Where is the logic in that?
I'm just sayin
If they were only funded through volunteers it would have never gotten this bad, unfortunately many special interests groups are getting tax funding, your are unwillingly paying to have your rights and freedoms violated all on speculation and arbitrary values, unsupported by facts, it's all perception.
Liberals have been in power for too long. Its time everyone start voting conservative to alleviate all this crap
Um,
Clearly HE was drinking while doing his analysis.................
Except good old Conservative Frank Klees started all the HTA 172 bull crap.
Note that under this legislation you can have somebody else drive your car home, but under 172 you get your car impounded. It's all crap and we are sheep who take it.
Just watch, even if the Libs are voted out, none of this will go away.
Just don't forget that this also applies to boats (and canoes and kayaks and ...) on May 1st as well. And to top it off, these suspensions will now be recorded on your driving record so if the insurance company orders an abstract on you, they'll see the suspension.
... guess that leaves having a beer and bicycling left ... for now ...
all fixed up
Every time i read this statement I laugh my *** off. It's only a cash grab if you break the law. Why not teach Dalton a lesson and don't break any laws, that way he won't get any money, man he'll be ******.
i rarely drink alcohol now anyways. that half bottle of vodka has been sitting in my fridge for 8 months.
when you don't drink you save lots of $ to spend on your bike
If this goes into effect, the cops should just set up RIDE checks all around the financial district. Lots of wealthy people that drink expensive wine with their lunch and dinner, then getting into their luxury automobiles to drive home. Hell, those people can afford the fines and also high-buck lawyers.
"I got a new spleen from a guy who liked to ride motorcycles". Fry, Futurama
My bike is a video star! youtube.com/watch?v=Ju9caIDWQ40
You're also not allowed to drive on the highway, drive after dark or with a passenger, so you think that shouldn't change either?Can someone explain to me why when your in the graduated license stage your allowed.. well hang on let's see 0 %alcohol nada zippo , zilch , but when you get your full G your allowed .08 % alcohol. Where is the logic in that?
I'm just sayin
They're assuming when you started you had no idea how to drive and therefore the addition of a small amount of alcohol would make you even less safe on the road. Once you get to G you've had more experience and are presumably a better driver so any disadvantage caused by the alcohol won't make you an unsafe driver.Can someone explain to me why when your in the graduated license stage your allowed.. well hang on let's see 0 %alcohol nada zippo , zilch , but when you get your full G your allowed .08 % alcohol. Where is the logic in that?
I'm just sayin
That's the logic I see anyway. Makes sense to me. Of course there are still people on the roads that have been driving for years and can't do it with any kind of ability or logic.
Ya know wouldn't the simple solution be "don't drink and drive?" Simple really. Drink and swim, drink and shoot some pool, drink and watch a movie, drink and have sex, see lots of things to do with drinking. Just don't drink and drive and you have nothing to complain about, and you will have more money for alcohol!!!!!
Moderator
Not that I drink and drive (actually I don't drink at all), but it seems to me that effectively criminalizing something that isn't a crime (blowing in the 'warn range') and making it punishable prior to ever seeing a courtroom (which you never will with this) is the wrong way to go. If they're having trouble getting habituals off the road because of loopholes in the old law then they needed to fix the old law, not widen the net.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
Ok that sounds like the most reasonable thing I've read here yet. How come nobody at Queens park can come to a sensible and competent conclusion with this stuff?
How do we fix that?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks