I'm not sure if they are trying to impliment the current system thats in BC in Alberta. I don't see why Alberta any every other province wouldn't head down the same road as BC. In BC its just a tax grab. IIRC, it costs an individual at least $1500 if they get pulled over in the warning range. $1500 is on the cheap end. They are not interested in saving lives. Its all about the money. They are targetting average Joe and Jane who work steady jobs and have to pay off these fines, impound fees, license re-instantment fees because they are generally responsible people. It gives the police way too much power, while a citizen has no immediate recourse. I'm sure you can dispute the warning charge, but it does nothing. It doesn't stop them from taking our vehicle for 3 days, for not breaking the ####ing law.
They are making a ton of money off this. And nothing goes back to solve the problem. There was an article about the RCMP being a bit peeved about this because they know they are generating alot of money and they aren't seeing any of it come back to their department. I wouldn't mind all the money they are making off this if they used it to fund projects for say problematic drinkers. Or help victims/family of victims of drunk drivers. So far as I can tell, none of the money is going towards anything like that. The RDP (Responsible Driver Program) is not one of those projects thats helpfull. The RDP is just another cog in the money making machine.
It gives the police too much power and these changes have been motivated by money. Those are the reasons why I hate the changes. Go to zero tolerance drinking for all I care, but just make the rules the rules and none of this gray area bull####.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flamesfan6
well now the government is deciding that .08 is not an acceptable level of risk and want it to be .05 as the acceptable risk
again, why, why are there people fighting this type of legislation? why do you want people to push the legal limits of alcohol, it makes no sense, this is something that makes sense, complain about other laws, but really one that actually is good and will save lives (as BC's case has proven)
|
I'm not so sure on that one. I don't think its been nearly effective as they are claiming. Its a cash cow and they got to throw some sort of attention getting number out there to average Joe so they can continue making money.
If someone has a more detailed article that would be great but anything i've seen has used a five year average for comparing October 2010 to October 2011. They say since the new changes that 68 people died to due to drinking and driving during that time period compared to a five year average of 113 during the same time period. The way the numbers have been presented i'm really curious as to what the death totals were like on a year to year basis. I'm curious to see if there is a steady decline and 68 isn't that far off projections. 113 over 5 years is 565 deaths if my math is correct. Now im sure there would be some way to manipulate the numbers in order to make sense that there is only 68 deaths. Maybe 4, and 5 years ago the deaths were pretty high, but years 3, 2, 1 were on a sharp steady decline low and 68 goes in line with that.
Unless there is another article stating the numbers from year to year, this release just reeks of manipulation of the numbers. It makes no sense for them to base their results off of the average of five years prior. You know damn well that if the year before the changes there were alot of deaths (say 175) and the four years preceding that had death totals closer to the 68 number, that they would not base it on a five year average.