|
New ban! Starting Aug 1, 21 and under cannot have ANY alcohol in blood while driving! (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
1) id like to know how many people in other age brackets died in the same period.
2) how does one gain experience if you dont allow them to get any?
3) $500 and overpriced ignition interlocks are a pretty good reason to pass this law. Not to mention the increased ability for the cops to stop people they otherwise may not be able to.
If you think they pass these laws out of the goodness of their hearts, you are sadly mistaken. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
1) id like to know how many people in other age brackets died in the same period.
2) how does one gain experience if you dont allow them to get any?
3) $500 and overpriced ignition interlocks are a pretty good reason to pass this law. Not to mention the increased ability for the cops to stop people they otherwise may not be able to.
If you think they pass these laws out of the goodness of their hearts, you are sadly mistaken. |
Why are you making it complicated? Why does it matter about the difference in alcohol-related deaths between various age groups? The fact is, 235 kids died because they thought couple thinks was OK. They got mixed messages about how much they can drink. Not anymore, now its easy and simple. They are not old enough to understand how much drinking is OK behind the wheel - and there are many people who support this law - even young people included.
The law is now quite simple, and it is designed to protect young people. Cops already can come up with reasons to stop anyone on the road at will, trust me on that one, I've seen it.
Before cops used to painstakingly measure the decimal points and argued whether kids went over the drinking limit, and it was a messy system. Now relatives of the kids who get killed while intoxicated will no longer be able to say "Hey, the law allowed my child to drink and drive".
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Why are you making it complicated? Why does it matter about the difference in alcohol-related deaths between various age groups? The fact is, 235 kids died because they thought couple thinks was OK. They got mixed messages about how much they can drink. Not anymore, now its easy and simple. They are not old enough to understand how much drinking is OK behind the wheel - and there are many people who support this law - even young people included.
The law is now quite simple, and it is designed to protect young people. Cops already can come up with reasons to stop anyone on the road at will, trust me on that one, I've seen it.
Before cops used to painstakingly measure the decimal points and argued whether kids went over the drinking limit, and it was a messy system. Now relatives of the kids who get killed while intoxicated will no longer be able to say "Hey, the law allowed my child to drink and drive".
|
It wouldnt be complicated if those allowed to legally drink as adults were subject to the same laws as adults. After all, those 18-22 are actually adults as opposed to "older children" as dalton mcguinty calls them. I understand zero tolerance for under 19. But if you are going to treat a specific age group who are legally adults differently from others, then facts make a HUGE difference!
Also, how many of those 235 they site were over the actual legal limit as opposed to having a minimal amount of BAC? You can minipulate stats anyway you want by extrapolating what you want and leaving out the rest of the info.
Also, i read in the paper the a 29 year old drunk driver was killed over the weekend while a guy who had .015 (a trace) of liquor was charged.
So i guess its time to make a law specifically for 29 year olds?
Again, do you really think that safety is the primary goal of this law? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
I completely agree with this commentary:
| quote: | Zero tolerance makes zero sense for drivers: Woodcock
Dalton McGuinty goes hunting for approval in another wrong place
Good morning, young drivers of Ontario, and welcome to the brave new world of driver’s licence rules.
What? You didn’t know there were new rules starting Sunday? Not surprising really — not when the Ontario government trots them out at a press conference on a hot midsummer Monday, when many young Ontarians are either on vacation, at camp or just enjoying doing nothing — and less than a week before they were due to go into effect.
So here’s a quick summary: If you’re under 22 and get caught with even a trace of alcohol in your blood stream, starting Aug. 1 you’ll have your licence lifted immediately for 24 hours and face a 30-day suspension plus as much as $500 in fines.
And that means everyone under 22, even if you’re beyond the graduated licence system.
Or in other words, you’ll be a drunk driver without being drunk.
The new rules also apply to all novice drivers of any age.
Obtaining a driver’s licence in Ontario was already confusing enough. There’s the graduated licence system which the government keeps tinkering with. There has been a flock of new driving rules the last few years, the most controversial being street racing/stunt driving which police have used on all kinds of speeding infractions.
A law that was supposed to go into effect now along with the zero tolerance rules was to have prevented young drivers from carrying more than one passenger but the McGuinty government had to back down on that one when it realized it would cause serious problems for rural young people with limited transportation options.
Then there’s impaired driving. The legal limit for alcohol in the bloodstream while driving is still .08 in Ontario but you’d never know it. For the last couple of years, police have been suspending the licences of people who blow .05 as a warning.
Now it’s zero tolerance for some.
And there are many ways in which to fall into the government’s zero tolerance trap. Mouthwash, for instance. It’s full of alcohol and what young male doesn’t use a lot of it when meeting a young female? Cough and cold medication — also loaded with it. A number of chocolates contain a bit of alcohol. So much for Gran Marnier-flavoured truffles.
And let’s not forget communion. Stay away from it. That little sip of wine will finish you off. Yes, I know not many of you will be bothered by this since you don’t attend church now, but we really didn’t need yet another excuse for you to stay away.
That’s the trouble with zero tolerance. There’s no room for error. In fact, we know zero tolerance doesn’t usually work. It’s been tried in schools to clamp down on violence and results in a whole class of students unable to go to school. Zero tolerance for drugs in the U.S. has done nothing much except create a whole new bunch of criminals out of people who smoke a little marijuana.
So what’s up with this, you’re asking? I’ll tell you what’s up: They think we’re all drooling idiots.
Me with 40 years of driving experience and you who have been brought up in a Mothers Against Drunk Driving world.
None of us can be trusted, whether it’s smoking in cars or talking on cellphones while driving or drinking a single bottle of beer.
And if you’re a government that has made some unpopular decisions lately — HST and eco tax, to name just two — it’s really easy to appeal to political correctness in search of a little approval and it doesn’t cost you any money. In fact, you may make a few bucks on the fines.
After all, who is going to have the nerve to stand up and complain about too many rules around as touchy a subject as drunk driving? Nobody. |
|
|
|
| VDub |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
3) $500 and overpriced ignition interlocks are a pretty good reason to pass this law. Not to mention the increased ability for the cops to stop people they otherwise may not be able to.
If you think they pass these laws out of the goodness of their hearts, you are sadly mistaken. |
I don't know Magnetonium...
This seems pretty simple to me... |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
It wouldnt be complicated if those allowed to legally drink as adults were subject to the same laws as adults. After all, those 18-22 are actually adults as opposed to "older children" as dalton mcguinty calls them. I understand zero tolerance for under 19. But if you are going to treat a specific age group who are legally adults differently from others, then facts make a HUGE difference!
Also, how many of those 235 they site were over the actual legal limit as opposed to having a minimal amount of BAC? You can minipulate stats anyway you want by extrapolating what you want and leaving out the rest of the info.
Also, i read in the paper the a 29 year old drunk driver was killed over the weekend while a guy who had .015 (a trace) of liquor was charged.
So i guess its time to make a law specifically for 29 year olds?
Again, do you really think that safety is the primary goal of this law? |
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.
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| 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. |
As would I. But it would have to come with a compromise as i said before.
1) drop last call
2) allow people to drink in public
| quote: |
Just yesterday on QEW some guy got ripped into several pieces after hitting a median (quite literally!), drunk driver obviously. |
Obviously? Is that a fact or assumption? Could it possibly have been mechanical failure? Health condition? source?
| quote: | Obviously there's a political move behind this, but thats with any decisions by politicians.
|
SO if you know this and understand it, why do you let them pass laws that give them blind authority and trust them when they say its good for us?
I dont get it with this country. We say we dont trust politicians, yet we let them pass more and more laws that give them more control and authority over us because we somehow trust them more than each other. Yet, as i said, we dont trust politicians.
Its a whacked mentality to say the least! |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Obviously? Is that a fact or assumption? Could it possibly have been mechanical failure? Health condition? source?
|
Do I sound like I kid around?
Toronto man, 54, died in horrific crash
http://www.thespec.com/News/article/818159
| quote: |
OPP investigating violent QEW collision
August 02, 2010
Paul Morse
The Hamilton Spectator
A horrific high-speed collision on the QEW has killed a 54-year-old Toronto man who hit a guardrail with such force that he was torn in half.
It began shortly after 2 a.m. Sunday when scores of 911 calls flooding in from drivers on the QEW reporting a wildly erratic driver in the Toronto-bound lanes near Fifty Road. OPP officers immediately rushed to try to stop him.
“He was all over four or five lanes of the highway and ramps,” said Hamilton police Staff Sergeant Gary Thompson.
Within seconds, as OPP cruisers moved in to try to stop the vehicle, it crashed headfirst at full speed into a guardrail separating the QEW from the ramp onto Centennial, west of the Grays Road overpass.
The impact with the guardrail’s leading edge was so violent that it drove the engine and steering column backward through the vehicle, thrusting the driver clear out the back of the SUV.
“The man was dismembered,” Thompson said. “He was literally torn into pieces.”
The crash is under investigation by the OPP’s collision reconstruction team. An autopsy, forensic testing and mechanical investigation will be used to determine the cause of the collision.
The crash forced police to keep the Toronto-bound lanes of the QEW closed until 7 a.m. Sunday.
Police are still trying to notify next of kin, said OPP media officer Constable Dave Woodward. |
... ...
| quote: |
SO if you know this and understand it, why do you let them pass laws that give them blind authority and trust them when they say its good for us?
I dont get it with this country. We say we dont trust politicians, yet we let them pass more and more laws that give them more control and authority over us because we somehow trust them more than each other. Yet, as i said, we dont trust politicians.
Its a whacked mentality to say the least! |
Drunk drivers affect you, me, everyone. Its not politicians going after you, but drunk drivers full-speed going the opposite way right at ya. People are dumb, I drive on highways often as part of my job, and I see many tard drivers all the time. Many are driving worse than drunk drivers. And there are not enough traffic cops to clean up that mess. People going 140 in a 90 km/h zone, changing lanes. Its a recipe for disaster. Especially if one of those sons of bitches hits my little Yaris - I will be ed!
Public safety is #1 priority, lots of suicide drivers out there.
I bet if its up to you, you'd cut the funding for OPP and other government agencies and let the hell break loose.
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Do I sound like I kid around?
Toronto man, 54, died in horrific crash
http://www.thespec.com/News/article/818159
... ...
Drunk drivers affect you, me, everyone. Its not politicians going after you, but drunk drivers full-speed going the opposite way right at ya. People are dumb, I drive on highways often as part of my job, and I see many tard drivers all the time. Many are driving worse than drunk drivers. And there are not enough traffic cops to clean up that mess. People going 140 in a 90 km/h zone, changing lanes. Its a recipe for disaster. Especially if one of those sons of bitches hits my little Yaris - I will be ed!
Public safety is #1 priority, lots of suicide drivers out there.
I bet if its up to you, you'd cut the funding for OPP and other government agencies and let the hell break loose.
|
Can you point me to the point in the article where alcohol is mentioned?
You would lose that bet. If it were up to me, id make the laws reasonable and then enforce the out of them. For example, raise the maximum speed to 120 (our highways are designed for 120) and then hire MORE cops to enforce it to within 5 km/h. As it is most people now average that speed. I would also enforce a MINIMUM speed limit as well, in regular conditions.
My solutions arent quick fixes by banning everything and then making some side cash off of it. My solutions would actually allow people to take MORE responsibility for their actions along with harsher punishments for those that abuse those responsibilities. In other words, punish the criminal and make them an example instead of punishing the innocents as if they were potential criminals.
Im not against the officially stated intent of most nanny state laws. Its how they are written and how they implement them that is the problem. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Can you point me to the point in the article where alcohol is mentioned?
You would lose that bet. If it were up to me, id make the laws reasonable and then enforce the out of them. For example, raise the maximum speed to 120 (our highways are designed for 120) and then hire MORE cops to enforce it to within 5 km/h. As it is most people now average that speed. I would also enforce a MINIMUM speed limit as well, in regular conditions.
My solutions arent quick fixes by banning everything and then making some side cash off of it. My solutions would actually allow people to take MORE responsibility for their actions along with harsher punishments for those that abuse those responsibilities. In other words, punish the criminal and make them an example instead of punishing the innocents as if they were potential criminals.
Im not against the officially stated intent of most nanny state laws. Its how they are written and how they implement them that is the problem. |
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 ...
|
|
|
| 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!
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.
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
