If this is the best that supporters of the law can do then I'm going to go ahead and say that this is a terrible law and all of those opposed are right. Now maybe a opinion piece isn't the best place for this guy to go into detail about the conclusive study mentioned and frankly the journo may not have the expertise to do a proper break down.
Nevertheless, here is a really lame article in support of the law with virtually not a single thing in it that proves that this measure will curtail drunk driving. Although he makes some reasonable points about why it isn't so bad afterall. EDIT: I take that last sentence back. What a terrible article. All of his arguments are "well that argument against the law is invalid because it is invalid".
Quote:
|
The Wildrose party says the law's tougher roadside suspensions will punish people like me, when it's the hardcore repeat drunks over .16 who are the real problem.
Not so, according to blood-alcohol levels of dead drivers analyzed by the University of Western Ontario and published by MADD Canada. In every jurisdiction where these measures were implemented, the study revealed an impact on drivers across all bloodalcohol levels, even those above .16. The statistics show that immediate consequences at the roadside are the most effective way to change behaviour before people reach the chronic .16 stage, by which time they are so far gone that punishments become ineffective.
|