When are people like you going to realize lots of people (including me) enjoy a glass of wine or bottle of beer with their meal when going out to dinner and has no adverse affect on their driving when going home?
|
|
|
Remember 0.05 is still a roadside suspension
- Thread starter silence
- Start date
When are people like you going to realize lots of people (including me) enjoy a glass of wine or bottle of beer with their meal when going out to dinner and has no adverse affect on their driving when going home?
Why have the HTA charge of careless driving when there is already the Criminal Code charge of dangerous driving available? Because the offence that applies depends on the extremity of the driving behaviour.
Same goes for impaired. There is the regulatory but non-criminal offence of driving with a prohibited amount of alcohol in your system. Ontario's regulatory limit of .05 BAC is no different than the non-criminal sanctions that apply for that same BAC level in most of the rest of the developed world. And like much of the rest of the world, criminal penalties kick in only when you reach .08 or higher.
The average guy should be able to have that glass of wine or beer, and probably a second one as well with dinner, without fear of exceeding .05.
rbjeepthing
Well-known member
The same time when people realize driving is a privilege not a right.
Whoever said it was a problem with the law is bang on. In my opinion it should be 0 tolerance ie 0.00BAC.
It is well known in studies that as little as .02BAC can effect ones motor skills and judgment.
http://www.utsa.edu/utsapd/Crime_Pr...ow Alcohol Can Affect Safe Driving Skills.pdf
http://www.uhs.uga.edu/aod/athletic-performance.html
http://www.unc.edu/~jdumas/projects/alcohol.htm
Should probably ban alcohol then. What if you hit 0.02 while weilding a steak knife at dinner? Someone could get hurt!
Either that or, we make laws that are sensible based on the real scale of the probem. It sounds to me that at 0.08 the drunk driving problem is well under control. There's even room to remove some of the legislation that is abusive to our civil rights if you ask me.
Ask yourself why much of the world had settled on .05 as the point at which sanctions start to be applied, why they did so long before Ontario ever did. Did you ever stop to think that Ontario's adoption of .05 as a regulatory limit came as a result of seeing the actual long term benefits of doing so in other jurisdictions around the world?
OpenGambit
Banned
It amazes me how much people talk about their civil rights on this forum when driving and riding is one of those activities where restrictions thereof have next to no civil rights or charter implications.
Yeah, if you're a 95 pound pantywaist.
Good to know as I will continue to enjoy my alcoholic beverage with my meal before driving home.
Show me how they weighted any apparent benefit against the cost and inconvenience to people who are otherwise behaving in a perfectly safe manner.
Otherwise, the most rational conclusion is that legislators were enabled by a population who is afraid of it's own shadow and that has been scared into acceptance of these regulations by a terrorist organization such as MADD.
We'll see if you're singing the same tune when people are fine $10,000 for sitting in their uninsured parked car and the 'dish is rationalizing it by comparing it against the existing practice of criminalizing drunks who sit in their parked car.
In other words.. "everybody else is doing it, it must be right!!!" :lol:
0.08 Is the limit still but 0.05 is yes a limit of sorts its also up the discression of the officer if I remember correctly. Most just treat it as the limit.
Its the time between the last drink and sliding behind the wheel, not the fact that you slept. Got hammered but had your last drink at 3, sleep for 4 hours then drive to work... your still drunk. A LOT of people forget that and automatically think they are ok or if they are fuzzy still its ok cus they slept. Its morning now.. another day course your not drunk anymore.
Its sucks and I know for some who can handle it its unfair etc etc. But personally I would rather buy my alcohol and drink at home rather than risk it. Honestly its cheaper that way. And I will happily make a bed for someone to stay over if they have a drink and decide to be safe about it. Heck I'll sleep on the floor if it means keeping people safe.
invictus43
Well-known member
That's what MADD would like..24/7.. I wonder what percentage of people driving are impaired by things like, lack of sleep..texting..putting make-up on.. I suppose we have people like that dumb-*** that drove into Lake Muskoka to thank for knee-jerk reactionism like this..
rbjeepthing
Well-known member
No one is saying there is not other issues that can cause accidents that are just as dangerous. The biggest thing is drinking an alcoholic beverage is a choice that one makes and can be easily avoided. There are laws against using hand held devices and it's only a matter of time before they become more strict as well.
[video=youtube;2UiHpZGoGzI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UiHpZGoGzI[/video]
I totally agree. MADD is a profit driven organization whose main purpose is to justify their own existence. I hear far too often MADD promoters screaming about the non-existent carnage that occurs daily on Canadian roads. If you look at MADD's financial statement, approximately 1/3 of their revenues goes to compensate employees. I think the main benefits of MADD are a well paying job for 47 full and part-time workers. This is at the expense of any casual drinkers caught by the vindictive laws lobbied for by MADD.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010form21sched6-eng.action?b=139072060RR0001&e=2010-06-30&n=MOTHERS+AGAINST+DRUNK+DRIVING+(MADD+CANADA)+-+LES+MERES+CONTRE+L'ALCOOL+AU+VOLANT+(MADD+CANADA)&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra-arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Ft3010form21-eng.action%3Fb%3D139072060RR0001%26amp%3Be%3D2010-06-30%26amp%3Bn%3DMOTHERS%2BAGAINST%2BDRUNK%2BDRIVING%2B%28MADD%2BCANADA%29%2B-%2BLES%2BMERES%2BCONTRE%2BL%27ALCOOL%2BAU%2BVOLANT%2B%28MADD%2BCANADA%29%26amp%3Br%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra-arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fbasicsearchresult-eng.action%3Fs%3Dregistered%26amp%3Bk%3DMADD%26amp%3Bp%3D1%26amp%3Bb%3Dtrue
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
what turbodish says has no effect on the legitmacy of a law.
Its also pointless to make up hypothetical laws that don't exist.
|
|
|
|
|