|
New ban! Starting Aug 1, 21 and under cannot have ANY alcohol in blood while driving! (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Magnetonium |
If people drive properly, and park in proper spots, they will not get tickets or be fined or whatever.
Its not that hard for a person to drive home sober, its not a difficult or an impossible thing to do. Stay sober, plan a designated driver, stay safe.
Life is a very precious thing, there are other people on the roads too ... they might be affected.
Imagine how those emergency personnel got affected yesterday - extricating bloody body parts from the mangled SUV on the highway. How are they going to sleep at night? You think they oppose this new law? Yeah right.
|
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
If it was up to me, I'd make it 0 percent alcohol for ALL drivers. Indeed, it may offend some young drivers, and it might be a bit unfair. I just dont want to see drunk people in vehicular accidents anymore, its like a broken record ... every weekend in the news.
Just yesterday on QEW some guy got ripped into several pieces after hitting a median (quite literally!), drunk driver obviously.
Obviously there's a political move behind this, but thats with any decisions by politicians.
|
The people getting drunk and driving before this law are the same people who are getting drunk and driving after this law. The law only stops the somewhat responsible people who may only have a couple drinks in a night from drinking at all. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
The people getting drunk and driving before this law are the same people who are getting drunk and driving after this law. The law only stops the somewhat responsible people who may only have a couple drinks in a night from drinking at all. |
Exactly, so you do agree that because of this law young people will think twice before chubbing down on that glass of alcohol. Of course not everyone will, just like with any law there will always be violators. Always. That doesnt mean the law is useless. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Exactly, so you do agree that because of this law young people will think twice before chubbing down on that glass of alcohol. Of course not everyone will, just like with any law there will always be violators. Always. That doesnt mean the law is useless. |
Young people that were not breaking the previous law...yes. I don't disagree with a 0 % BAC law...I just don't believe you should target one particular age group.
Would it be alright to not allow people 20-25 years of age to listen to music while driving? That is the largest group of people involved in accidents where music or the radio has been a factor causing the accident. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Come on, erratic driving that caused the driver to weave in and out of 4 lanes of traffic, with many 911 calls from concerned drivers that had to get out of the way? You cant see the obvious signs of drunk driving? Even on the 11 o'clock news they said that alcohol was a factor. Confirmed! |
As i said, You ASSUME. It could very well be alcohol. But it could also be mechanical failure or health problems. Stick to the facts, thats all im saying here.
| quote: | | LOL, Jay! You gotta be ting me - you wanna raise the speed limit to 120?! :wtf: People are ALREADY going 120 on the highway, if you set the speed limit to 120 then they will go at 140. You dont understand human nature. |
perhaps you missed the part where i said add more police and heavily enforce to within 5 km/h? Of course everyone already goes 120. This is why it should be enshrined into law! The roads are capable, people are capable, so why is it illegal?
| quote: | | Do you drive on a highway, ever? No offense, but you havent seen what I've seen. A lot of aggressive drivers. I've been in accidents three times in the last 2 years, and not ONE in years before - none of those was my fault either, but each time it was a dumb- driver (rear-ended full-speed at a stop sign, rear-ended while I was turning right, sideswiped as a result of road rage). It has affected my insurance, even though none of them was my fault. |
the aggressive behaviour that i see are usually people who are weaving in and out of traffic doing 120-130 around the bozos who insist on going 80-90 in clear conditions. I never go over 120 and only with traffic. And another thing i would do is insurance reform btw. Your rate ONLY goes up if its your fault. Put blame where blame is due.
| quote: | | Next time you're driving, instead of just staring ahead, look around and see how bad people are driving. And I am not talking about just the speeders, but the idiots who go 60 km/h on QEW, and those who abruptly change 4 lanes at once just to get to their exit at the last second. Those who blow through red lights and stop signs like there is no tomorrow. |
i love how you assume things. Since ive had a license for 17 years without one ticket or accident, im pretty confident in my abilities when it comes to defensive driving. And yes i agree with you about those mentioned above. My idea of increasing police presence as well as a minimum speed limit on freeways would solve this.
And get this - ALL OF THOSE ARE SOBER PEOPLE. Imagine them with just a slight amount of alcohol in the blood? Holly hell, I can see why that dude got ripped in several pieces yesterday, it all makes sense!
| quote: | Regulation is the way. Here's another random example - look at the Canadian banking industry for example - we had it regulated and Americand didnt - and you saw what happened in the unregulated American banking industry. Jay Jay ...
|
So what you are telling me is that traffic regulations arent working already. So the answer are more???
And to address the red herring you threw out, american banks are also regulated but in a different manner. But they are regulated. European banks are even more tightly controlled than ours when it comes to lending and they are having far more trouble than us. The reason we avoided recession has more to do with our resource/commodity based economy more than anything else. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
does anyone *really* think this is a cash move? with the possible exception of parking tickets and photo radar, I highly doubt that enforcement of any kind is 'profitable' when the cost of ALL resources that need to be allocated to collecting those fines are considered.
do people know what a cop makes? what it costs to prosecute someone in court? what it costs to administer the entire program? I would bet anything that it's a LOT more than $500 a head, lol! |
More laws = more opportunities the cops have to lay charges. So they pull you over for a cell phone, then they get you for seat belts, oh and you happened to have a glass of wine with dinner, and on and on and on. The charges can rack up pretty fast!
| quote: | the problem with this new law is that impaired driving is not likely to be prevented by it.
the 19-21yr olds (or anyone else, for that matter) who drive drunk have not been deterred by the existing impaired driving law or the law against having a BAC higher than 0.08...so ask yourself why would they be deterred by a zero BAC law?
put this another way, how many 19-21 years olds do you think drink and then drive, mistakenly thinking that they are below the limit of 0.08 AND who either would not otherwise have driven if they knew they were over or who would not drink at all before driving, given the new law of zero BAC?
I'll suggest, without any hard evidence of my own, that would be a *very* small percentage of impaired drivers. |
i agree with you here
| quote: | | the law doesn't ease enforcement either. police have a number already (0.08) where they can lay a charge...so why difference does it make from an 'ease of enforcement' standpoint if that number is lower (or even if it was higher)? the hard-stop is there, regardless. it means less 'grey area' court cases where someone blows under 0.08% but is charged with impaired driving...but that's a flaw in the testing methodology and with the court system, not evidence in support of a zero BAC. |
but it is now easier to make an easy $500 off of more people that are pulled over now right?
| quote: | the better solution, as is often the case, is education/prevention, competent legislation based upon hard evidence rather than the pursuit of political gain, adequate enforcement of existing laws by the police *and* the courts, and creating an environment where the undesired behaviour is not so "taboo" (relax liquor laws) and is easily avoided (e.g. improved transit).
but that costs money, the results are seen over a longer period of time, and it doesn't score political points NOW. |
EXACTLY! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
If people drive properly, and park in proper spots, they will not get tickets or be fined or whatever. |
until you create so many laws that its next to impossible to follow the law.
If you drove today im willing to bet you broke the law at least a dozen times. Whether you went a few km over the speed limit, stopped just over the stop line (thats running a stop sign/red light), didnt properly check your blind spot, etc etc. The more laws we make, the more criminals we create!
| quote: | Its not that hard for a person to drive home sober, its not a difficult or an impossible thing to do. Stay sober, plan a designated driver, stay safe.
Life is a very precious thing, there are other people on the roads too ... they might be affected. |
agreed. But again the question is the law and how its being applied, not drunk driving and you keep missing that point.
| quote: | Imagine how those emergency personnel got affected yesterday - extricating bloody body parts from the mangled SUV on the highway. How are they going to sleep at night? You think they oppose this new law? Yeah right.
|
I feel for them in any circumstance, and we have yet to see what the cause of that crash was. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
As i said, You ASSUME. It could very well be alcohol. But it could also be mechanical failure or health problems. Stick to the facts, thats all im saying here. |
I already told you, it is a fact. Police say that alcohol is a factor, but because the guy is in several body parts they cant exactly get a breathalizer test, silly! It will take days if not weeks to get all the reports done, i.e. toxicology reports after autopsy and other stuff has been done. Here's another link, in case you dont believe it:
http://www.900chml.com/Channels/Reg...aspx?ID=1259644
| quote: |
Police probe fatal crash on QEW
Hamilton Spectator
8/2/2010
Police believe alcohol is a factor in a horrific crash on the QEW in Stoney Creek.
The OPP tried stopping an SUV that was seen driving erratically on the Toronto bound lanes near Centennial Parkway early yesterday.
The vehicle then crashed head first into a guardrail.
Police say the impact so violent, the driver was dismembered.
The man's name has not been released.
The crash is under investigation by the OPP’s collision reconstruction team. |
Oh, I guess you dont remember this drunk teen killing a father of two a month ago, going the wrong way on a highway:
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/....aspx?e=2654321
| quote: |
A head-on highway crash involving alcohol has killed someone on the QEW in Niagara for the second time in a week.
A teen driving into traffic on the Garden City Skyway narrowly missed a police car before crashing head-on into another vehicle, killing a 50-year-old Kitchener man early Monday morning.
The victim's wife and two daughters were also hospitalized after the high-speed collision that closed the Toronto-bound lanes of the skyway for about six hours Monday morning, said Niagara OPP Staff Sgt. Jan Idzenga.
The fatal crash comes just days after two trucks collided head-on in the northbound lanes of the QEW near Netherby Rd. in Fort Erie, killing a Niagara Falls man.
Alcohol was a factor in both deaths, said Niagara OPP Staff Sgt. Jan Idzenga.
"We're seeing too many … impaired driving incidents," he said Monday. "Some drivers obviously aren't getting the message, and it's killing people."
Police said the Honda Civic carrying a family of four from Kitchener was driving Toronto-bound on the downslope of the skyway around 2:30 a.m. Monday when they collided with a Black Chevy Cavalier driven by an 18-year-old Niagara Falls man.
"Both cars were traveling at highway speeds when they collided, so you can imagine what the impact would be," said Idzenga. "This family was coming down (the Toronto-bound lanes) and all of a sudden they're confronted with these headlights that shouldn't be there. Did they have any warning? None whatsoever, basically."
The force of the crash tore apart the Civic and catapulted the Cavalier onto its back.
Freelance photographer David Ritchie reached the scene around 5 a.m. and was stunned by "the total carnage."
Toys, blankets and pillows remained scattered around the destroyed Civic as investigators milled about the two vehicles.
|
| quote: |
perhaps you missed the part where i said add more police and heavily enforce to within 5 km/h? Of course everyone already goes 120. This is why it should be enshrined into law! The roads are capable, people are capable, so why is it illegal? |
Arent you against regulation? LOL ... What you are suggesting is actually worse. You know how easy it is to waver 5km/h from the speed limit? By law, if you set the speed limit to 120 and charge for speeding when going at 125, you can easy win your case in court because its gotta be at least 10 difference FOR COMMON SENSE. Just like with any speeding today. You are only making it more complicated and dangerous with 120, "while its OK to go 125", and drivers will likely go 130 or 140 km/h.
| quote: |
the aggressive behaviour that i see are usually people who are weaving in and out of traffic doing 120-130 around the bozos who insist on going 80-90 in clear conditions. I never go over 120 and only with traffic. And another thing i would do is insurance reform btw. Your rate ONLY goes up if its your fault. Put blame where blame is due. |
We can all dream, can we?
| quote: |
So what you are telling me is that traffic regulations arent working already. So the answer are more??? |
There are cops, its just most of them are doing stupid things instead of serious business. They'd rather give out fines and tickets for people riding a bike on a sidewalk insteas of going after 140km/h speeders or real criminals. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
I already told you, it is a fact. Police say that alcohol is a factor, but because the guy is in several body parts they cant exactly get a breathalizer test, silly! It will take days if not weeks to get all the reports done, i.e. toxicology reports after autopsy and other stuff has been done. Here's another link, in case you dont believe it:
http://www.900chml.com/Channels/Reg...aspx?ID=1259644
|
finally you show me a source that mentions alcohol!
very sad... but have no fear, the under 22 law will stop that!?!?!
| quote: | | Arent you against regulation? LOL |
not entirely! Reasonable law that allows people to think and act for themselves is fine by me. Problem is that the law is less and less reasonable all the time.
| quote: | | ... What you are suggesting is actually worse. You know how easy it is to waver 5km/h from the speed limit? By law, if you set the speed limit to 120 and charge for speeding when going at 125, you can easy win your case in court because its gotta be at least 10 difference FOR COMMON SENSE. |
Easy solution. CHANGE THE LAW! How is it that most US states went from 55 mph (90 km/h) to 70 mph (115 km/h) and the accident rate actually went down?? And i can tell you that with heavy enforcement, its not common to find people going much faster. In fact, i love driving the interstates. People are far more disciplined and courtious.
| quote: | | Just like with any speeding today. You are only making it more complicated and dangerous with 120, "while its OK to go 125", and drivers will likely go 130 or 140 km/h. |
so you say
| quote: | | We can all dream, can we? |
Yes we can. Some dream of authoritarian "utopia" states and others dream of free and liberal ones.
| quote: | | There are cops, its just most of them are doing stupid things instead of serious business. They'd rather give out fines and tickets for people riding a bike on a sidewalk insteas of going after 140km/h speeders or real criminals. |
AHAAAAA i agree with you here!! They are handing out STUPID TICKETS for STUPID LAWS that probably shouldnt be there in the first place and taking away from real problems. Why? for the easy cash grab! And this is exactly my point!! Thank you for practically validating my position ;) |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
finally you show me a source that mentions alcohol!
|
I told you all along, and you just dont see that I am NOT kidding around. I mentioned they said in the news, too.
| quote: |
very sad... but have no fear, the under 22 law will stop that!?!?!
|
It will be a better deterrent, drink and drive - you get into a lot of from the cops! No more if's and's or but's. No need to argue that you only had one beer. Using common sense, the law will save at least one life, because you know - some people actually take laws seriously. Not everyone, as I said before, but thats with any law.
| quote: |
Easy solution. CHANGE THE LAW! How is it that most US states went from 55 mph (90 km/h) to 70 mph (115 km/h) and the accident rate actually went down?? And i can tell you that with heavy enforcement, its not common to find people going much faster. In fact, i love driving the interstates. People are far more disciplined and courtious. |
You are comparing apples to oranges now. You cant compare Canada to USA. I've been to the States, drivers are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better there, it has little to do with speed limits, but better enforcement and better system (AND better roads too!). Kudos to Americans for that. I love driving on their roads. People are more corteous there, and thats not because of the speed limits (which are about the same as ours). Its the general mindset of the population.
| quote: |
Yes we can. Some dream of authoritarian "utopia" states and others dream of free and liberal ones. |
You just love scaring people! Fear mongering again. But the truth is out there, on our Canadian roads, you can ignore that all you want but it is a problem. You helped prove my point with your comment that "American drivers are more disciplined and more corteous". Please dont tell me that its because of speed limits that are only 5-10km above ours (on the highway) and the rest about the same.
Please note that Americans are more strict on alcohol (drinking age of 21) ... maybe that can explain some of the reasons behind their "courteous" and more sober drivers? ;)
EDIT: Researched it and found something! Proves my point about regulating drinking and driving!
http://www.cspinet.org/booze/enforcing.htm
| quote: |
in USA, A recent study, funded by the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, shows that:
* state laws making it illegal to possess or purchase alcohol under the age of 21 have led to an 11.2% drop in alcohol-fueled traffic accident deaths among youth;
* states with robust fake ID laws on the books have experienced a 7.3% drop in alcohol-related car fatalities among under-21 drivers;
* strong fake ID use laws have larger impacts: the difference in impact between the weakest and strongest of fake ID use laws was 14.1%.
Enforcement of state and local laws has proven highly effective in the past. Vigorous use of compliance checks, increases in alcoholic-beverage excise taxes, and implantation of minimum legal drinking age (MLDA-21, Zero Tolerance), .10 BAC, .08 BAC, and Administrative License Revocation laws have been successful in curbing youth alcohol consumption and deterring alcohol-related crashes.5 According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, MLDA-21 and zero tolerance laws have had a strong effect on drivers aged 20 and under:
* Since 1988, the MLDA-21 law has reduced fatal crash involvements in under-21 drivers with a BAC of .01 or higher by 40%
* Since 2005, the zero tolerance law has reduced fatal crash involvements in under-21 drivers with a BAC of .01 or higher by 18%.
|
How about another reputable source?
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/underage.html
| quote: |
How has the teenage drinking and driving problem changed over time?
Trends in alcohol involvement in fatal crashes can be monitored through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a census of all fatal crashes in the United States. During the 1980s, the percentages of fatally injured drivers with BACs of 0.08 percent or higher declined among drivers of all ages. Reductions among young drivers were greatest, in part because of changing minimum alcohol purchasing age laws. In 1982, fewer than half of the states had a minimum purchasing age of 21, and 53 percent of all fatally injured drivers younger than 21 had BACs of 0.08 percent or higher. This statistic declined dramatically as states adopted older purchasing age laws. By 1995, it had declined to 24 percent, the biggest improvement for any age group, and was 28 percent in 2008. The per capita death rate of fatally injured 16-20 year-old passenger vehicle drivers with a positive BAC declined by 54 percent between 1982 and 1995, and a smaller decline was seen between 1995 and 2008 (31 percent).
|
So here's the logic - teenagers and people under 21 are generally less mature than older people. Hence they are most vulnerable to accidents when drinking and driving. Drinking and driving has been proven to show higher accident and death rates on the roads. Banning drinking and driving, perhaps in phases, will generally result in safer roads, with less accidents and fatalities.
Here's data from MADD on instances of drinking and driving. Look over it, it shows huge numbers of negatively affected people from alcohol ... when you take alcohol and mix it with anything - boating, fires, driving, swimming, etc. it makes things worse.
Although from the data I can tell that actually more adults die from drunk driving, which is why I agree with you that alcohol and driving should be banned completely. At least with this law, we can theoretically decrease the drunk driving deaths by 5-7%. Miniscule, but something.
Here are the sections related to the discussion, I copied and pasted from the below source:
http://www.madd.ca/english/research/real_facts.pdf
| quote: |
In 2006, 3,122 people were killed (p. 4) and another 15,458 were seriously injured in motor
vehicle crashes (p. 9).
Sixteen to nineteen year olds and 20-25 year olds accounted for 12% and 21.4% respectively, of
the total number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities (p. 14).
Alcohol was a factor in 39.9% of the total traffic fatalities among 16-19 year olds, and 52.3% of
the total traffic fatalities among 20-25 year olds (p. 15).
Among drivers killed in 2006, 38.2% of 16-19 year olds and 45.4% of 20-25 year olds had been
drinking (p. 17).
About 33% of the fatally-injured 16-19 year old drivers and 38.6% of the fatally-injured 20-25
year old drivers had BACs ≥ .08%. An additional 5.1% of the 16-19 year old drivers and 6.8% of
the 20-25 year old drivers had positive BACs below .08% (p. 17).
|
MADD actually has comprehensive data on all of this and more, you can serve it any way you like to pass any law against drunk drivers, its so easy. Choose your category of data:
http://www.madd.ca/english/research/stats.html
| quote: |
AHAAAAA i agree with you here!! They are handing out STUPID TICKETS for STUPID LAWS that probably shouldnt be there in the first place and taking away from real problems. Why? for the easy cash grab! And this is exactly my point!! Thank you for practically validating my position ;) |
With regards to the cash grab, I agree. Look at everything around you. Its a "Cash Grab" world, money talks. Devoting more police officers to patrol our roads and highways costs money, which can be partially compensated through fines.
The thing is - there is no other way to go after these idiots on the roads. Throwing them in jail is too authoritarian. Slapping on the wrist is a waste of police time and effort. The only way to get them is through their wallet, most people dont have souls anymore in case you didnt know. Thats the only way that it works. At the same time, it covers the salaries of police officers and reduces the burden on taxpayer money.
I dont see a better system of dealing with this problem. The fact is - hundreds of young people have lost their lives in the last decade in Ontario, for dumb reasons, and they didn't have to. We cant just let that continue to happen, especially when there is pressure from the public and the victims' parents to do something about it. Its the new generation of children we are talking about, adulthood starts at 21, if not later with today's mindset of people.
Either way, me and you agree that the system needs to be changed. The government just insulted the young people and didnt fix the whole problem, because it is concerned about votes - if they ban drinking & driving completely, that will hurt their re-election, so thats why they went only after young people in this law. Young people are ignorant and oblivious, while adults will cause a riot and flood the MP's with calls. Its stupid, yes. Thats why I think it was less of a cash grab. They do want to bring the casualties down, but they are afraid to fix the real issue. But they do want to look like they are doing something, and get credit for it!
|
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Also, Jay ... Canadians voted to reduce the drinking limits ... if you trust MADD, that is.
http://www.madd.ca/english/news/pr/p030929.htm
| quote: |
September 29, 2003
Canadians support lower legal limits for drinking drivers
Four in five Canadians want to see the current blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for impaired driving law reduced. A vast majority of Canadians (85%) feel MADD Canada's suggested 0.05% BAC is either about right or not low enough.
In a recent SES national telephone survey, Canadians were asked whether they supported or opposed a movement 'to change the laws so that people will not be able to drink as much and legally drive.' A majority -- 65% of Canadians strongly supported lowering the BAC, while another 14% somewhat supported the action.
When asked whether they supported the MADD Canada suggestion of lowering the BAC to a specific limit that would allow a 200 lb man to drink 4 drinks in 2 hours, or a 140 lb woman to drink 2 drinks in 2 hours, 48% of those surveyed thought the MADD Canada limit was 'about right', while 38% of Canadians thought the limit should be lower. Only 8% of Canadians felt the limit should be higher than 0.05% BAC.
Nik Nanos, President of SES, says, "In our surveys over the last two years, Canadians have been very consistent in their strong support for a lower BAC that would reduce the number of drinks a person could have and still legally drive. Our findings indicate that men and women, of all ages, from every region of the country, want to see a 0.05% BAC - or an even lower legal limit."
"Approximately seven of ten Canadians do not drink and drive - and I think the strong support for a lower BAC reflects Canadians intolerance for impaired driving, and our hope not to be killed or injured in an automobile crash caused by an impaired driver," says Mr. Nanos. "Support for a lower BAC has been consistently rock solid."
Andrew Murie, National Executive Director of MADD Canada, comments on the latest survey, "The international experience and the empirical research point to a lowered BAC of 0.05%. The more Canadians are informed about just how much a person can legally drink and still get behind the wheel, the more they support a lowered legal BAC limit."
"Canadians want to feel safe when they drive their vehicles - and that they won't become a statistic of impaired driving. That is why a vast majority has concluded that the BAC in our country should be lowered. Most of us understand this as an important public safety issue," says Mr. Murie. "Lower BACs mean there will be drivers drinking less - and that means increased safety for everyone on the road. And this is important for it will lead to a decrease in the number of Canadians being killed and injured as a result of alcohol-related crashes."
A Centre for Addiction and Mental Health study concludes that as much as 6% to 18%, or as high as 555 deaths a year would be avoided in Canada if the federal Criminal Code BAC were lowered to 0.05%.
MADD Canada reports that, in practical terms, the current legal limit means a 200 lb. man on an empty stomach can drink 6 plus, standard drinks in two hours and will likely not be charged with a Criminal Code offence for impaired driving. MADD Canada strongly believes this is not social drinking, but rather levels that are far too risky for other safe and sober road users.
The SES survey was taken between August 24 and September 2, 2003, commissioned by MADD Canada, and is accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. |
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
I told you all along, and you just dont see that I am NOT kidding around. I mentioned they said in the news, too.
It will be a better deterrent, drink and drive - you get into a lot of from the cops! No more if's and's or but's. No need to argue that you only had one beer. Using common sense, the law will save at least one life, because you know - some people actually take laws seriously. Not everyone, as I said before, but thats with any law.
You are comparing apples to oranges now. You cant compare Canada to USA. I've been to the States, drivers are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better there, it has little to do with speed limits, but better enforcement and better system (AND better roads too!). Kudos to Americans for that. I love driving on their roads. People are more corteous there, and thats not because of the speed limits (which are about the same as ours). Its the general mindset of the population.
You just love scaring people! Fear mongering again. But the truth is out there, on our Canadian roads, you can ignore that all you want but it is a problem. You helped prove my point with your comment that "American drivers are more disciplined and more corteous". Please dont tell me that its because of speed limits that are only 5-10km above ours (on the highway) and the rest about the same.
Please note that Americans are more strict on alcohol (drinking age of 21) ... maybe that can explain some of the reasons behind their "courteous" and more sober drivers? ;)
EDIT: Researched it and found something! Proves my point about regulating drinking and driving!
http://www.cspinet.org/booze/enforcing.htm
How about another reputable source?
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/underage.html
So here's the logic - teenagers and people under 21 are generally less mature than older people. Hence they are most vulnerable to accidents when drinking and driving. Drinking and driving has been proven to show higher accident and death rates on the roads. Banning drinking and driving, perhaps in phases, will generally result in safer roads, with less accidents and fatalities.
Here's data from MADD on instances of drinking and driving. Look over it, it shows huge numbers of negatively affected people from alcohol ... when you take alcohol and mix it with anything - boating, fires, driving, swimming, etc. it makes things worse.
Although from the data I can tell that actually more adults die from drunk driving, which is why I agree with you that alcohol and driving should be banned completely. At least with this law, we can theoretically decrease the drunk driving deaths by 5-7%. Miniscule, but something.
Here are the sections related to the discussion, I copied and pasted from the below source:
http://www.madd.ca/english/research/real_facts.pdf
MADD actually has comprehensive data on all of this and more, you can serve it any way you like to pass any law against drunk drivers, its so easy. Choose your category of data:
http://www.madd.ca/english/research/stats.html
With regards to the cash grab, I agree. Look at everything around you. Its a "Cash Grab" world, money talks. Devoting more police officers to patrol our roads and highways costs money, which can be partially compensated through fines.
The thing is - there is no other way to go after these idiots on the roads. Throwing them in jail is too authoritarian. Slapping on the wrist is a waste of police time and effort. The only way to get them is through their wallet, most people dont have souls anymore in case you didnt know. Thats the only way that it works. At the same time, it covers the salaries of police officers and reduces the burden on taxpayer money.
I dont see a better system of dealing with this problem. The fact is - hundreds of young people have lost their lives in the last decade in Ontario, for dumb reasons, and they didn't have to. We cant just let that continue to happen, especially when there is pressure from the public and the victims' parents to do something about it. Its the new generation of children we are talking about, adulthood starts at 21, if not later with today's mindset of people.
Either way, me and you agree that the system needs to be changed. The government just insulted the young people and didnt fix the whole problem, because it is concerned about votes - if they ban drinking & driving completely, that will hurt their re-election, so thats why they went only after young people in this law. Young people are ignorant and oblivious, while adults will cause a riot and flood the MP's with calls. Its stupid, yes. Thats why I think it was less of a cash grab. They do want to bring the casualties down, but they are afraid to fix the real issue. But they do want to look like they are doing something, and get credit for it! |
My summary to this is that 1) at least americans apply their law equally. If we are going to make the drinking age 21 or in our case 22, then do it. But to send mixed messages is ridiculous. BTW i dont agree with a 21 drinking age either.
2) you admit that they are targeting young people because they are easy prey politically. And this is acceptable?
3) perhaps better driving culture in the US stems from proper speed limits/laws and enforcement like what ive asked for here? |
|
|
|
|
