Victim of deadly crash hated the thought of drunk driving

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

Pleading guilty to something you did is taking responsibility. You were drinking, operated a vehicle and had readings over .08 %. I can appreciate people want to have a lawyer and have the best possible outcome, but how the hell is that not attempting to avoid the responsibility and the consequences for what you did. I don't mean when you ask a lawyer to resolve the matter, but when one looks for a loophole "set it for trial, I can't lose my license" when they actually committed the conduct they're accused of.

I give a lot of credit to those people who show up on the first appearance and say yes I did it, I accept it. You don't see that very often these days.

For some reason I seem to recall that you are a lawyer. If that's true, then I think this might be the saddest post I've read on here in quite some time.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by polak

Like I said, in Canada it would basically be prohibition. No drinking if you need to drive anywhere in the next 24 hours. You can't even get to a convenience store without a car in some areas.

So, what's your point?

Do you need to drink every day that bad?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by pylon

So, what's your point?

Do you need to drink every day that bad?

But 24 hours doesn't even make sense. I don't need to drink that bad, but FFS I would like to be able to go for wings, have a couple beers with my friends, walk home then get up and drive to work the next morning. You may not like drinking but I'm a grown up and can be trusted to do all of the above while still being safe and legal on the road. I would be very pissed off if the government tried to take that away from me.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

For some reason I seem to recall that you are a lawyer. If that's true, then I think this might be the saddest post I've read on here in quite some time.

What's sadder? A guy asking for someone to owe up to a mistake? Or some scumbag drunk driver fighting tooth and nail in the hopes he gets off on a technicality, while blowing thousands of dollars in public resources and time.

Drunk drivers are total scum, and trying to beat the system on a technicality when you know you did it, reinforces the scum factor.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

But 24 hours doesn't even make sense. I don't need to drink that bad, but FFS I would like to be able to go for wings, have a couple beers with my friends, walk home then get up and drive to work the next morning. You may not like drinking but I'm a grown up and can be trusted to do all of the above while still being safe and legal on the road. I would be very pissed off if the government tried to take that away from me.

This is the thing about people that are super defensive about their 'right' to drink.

If the consumption and distribution of alcoholic beverages was invented tomorrow, it would 100% be illegal and punishable by very harsh laws. It's a drug. Period.

As long as alcholol is legal, we will have hundred of innocent people killed by drunk drivers every year. This debate is no different than the gun debate in my eyes, and there is zero point arguing about fixing it, until booze is prohibited. There will always be people that excercise poor judgement. The only fix is to ban either cars or booze to eliminate it, and neither of hose will ever happen.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

the intent of what I put up is actually an attempt to reduce jail usage and get people to face what they've done and add an element of showing how unbelievably unacceptable their actions are.

There are lots of educational programs out there, there are ads on T.V. every single night about the effects of drinking and driving and nobody pays attention.

Making drunk drivers interact with their victims and society and taking away their ability to drive is the only way in conjunction with education that will get the message across.

I think you have to shock the crap out of someone on their first offense and show them the cost of making a selfish decision.

The only other alternatives to me are to either imprison them or bring back corporal punishment and whip them.

While adding more taxi's and more transits might cut down, there's still a hardcore bunch of idiots that drive drunk because they believe they're ok, they don't give a crap or the old "Man I need my car tomorrow to go to work"

There are certain crimes where you really have to face the possible results of your self centered action, and be shamed, and hammered financially.

Education by itself isn't enough.

Most people that I've known that have driven drunk and gotten caught and sent to things like driver education laugh it off. Go to court and claim hardship on a license suspension and don't care.

I'm not saying education by itself. I'm not even over estimating how effective it is. The message is out there. I'm not sure how much more education is needed or would help. All I'm saying is stiffer penalties probably won't amount to a lick. Do these people deserve it? Probably, though that's always a dangerous attitude in crime and punishment. The big question is, will it work? I don't see it, for the reasons I listed before.

I guess where our outlooks differ is in what you mentioned about first time offenders. I've known a few people who got caught and shaped up. I don't doubt you know a few that went the other way, but would a stronger 2nd penalty help? It's already 3 year suspension now, 2500-5000 in fines and lots more punishments if you cause injury or damage. Not to mention it's a criminal charge right from the 1st offence. If people aren't paying attention to that, they wont pay attention to worse punishments.

I like your idea about drunk drivers having to face aspects of society that have been hurt by it, but that's actually just as much, or more, education as it is punishment.

The problem is the addicting nature of booze, and the fact it impairs your decision making. It's basically the perfect storm to caue people to try and get away with it. And I'm not sure how you crack that nut.

Lastly, I'd add that if the plan is scaring people after the first offence, you've already lost. You want to stop people before they ever offend.

It's a tough issue for sure. It may not be fixed till we're all using self driving cars. We just have to do our best in the meantime. Which is probably more options and education. And maybe better policing.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by pylon

Personally, I think the right move is to simply make it a 100% zero tolerance policy with alcohol and driving.

If you have had a drink in the previous 24 hours, it is illegal to drive. Personally I would have zero issue with it, as I hardly ever drink, and would never miss it. If I never had another drink in my life I really wouldn't care.

But I can understand why some people would be rage mad if they did it. As a lot of people actually believe booze makes their lives better.

If people don't follow the rules now, why would they follow these rules? It's entirely overkill. If someone has a glass of wine with dinner, they legally couldn't drive until the following evening? No one would follow that rule, including the people who drink & drive anyway.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by pylon

As long as alcholol is legal, we will have hundred of innocent people killed by drunk drivers every year. This debate is no different than the gun debate in my eyes, and there is zero point arguing about fixing it, until booze is prohibited. There will always be people that excercise poor judgement. The only fix is to ban either cars or booze to eliminate it, and neither of hose will ever happen.

Where do you draw the line? Obesity, diabetes, and heart disease kill thousands every year. And government spending on health care to address those issues runs to the billions of dollars a year.

Should be make fast food illegal? Pop, fries, chocolate bars, chips. Sure, some people can handle those things in moderation. Some people can't. Best just to crack down and prohibit them, eh?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by pylon

This is the thing about people that are super defensive about their 'right' to drink.

If the consumption and distribution of alcoholic beverages was invented tomorrow, it would 100% be illegal and punishable by very harsh laws. It's a drug. Period.

As long as alcholol is legal, we will have hundred of innocent people killed by drunk drivers every year. This debate is no different than the gun debate in my eyes, and there is zero point arguing about fixing it, until booze is prohibited. There will always be people that excercise poor judgement. The only fix is to ban either cars or booze to eliminate it, and neither of hose will ever happen.

That's a really good point that I can relate to. I feel the same way about dogs. If nobody had ever heard of a dog as a pet and you proposed bringing a wild one into the City you'd be a laughed out of here.

Drinking is a pretty hardcore drug when you think about it.

[polak]

Prohibition worked great the first time around.

Yeah I do have the right to drink. I have the right to drink, I have the right to smoke, #### it, if you ask me I have the right to go shoot up heroin if I want to ruin my life. It's my body.

If you have an issue with covering the health care costs for people like that then go start lobbying for private health care but as a whole Canada has agreed that we're okay footing the bill for people doing stupid things that land them in the hospital. Whether it's speeding or drugs or trying to learn Parkour.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

Prohibition worked great the first time around.

Yeah I do have the right to drink. I have the right to drink, I have the right to smoke, #### it, if you ask me I have the right to go shoot up heroin if I want too ruin my life. It's my body.

If you have an issue with covering the health care costs for people like that then go start lobbying for private health care but as a whole Canada has agreed that we're okay footing the bill for people doing stupid things (whether it's speeding or drugs or trying to learn Parkour) that land them in the hospital.

I am more concerned about me landing in hospital because of the stupid things you* do...



*you as in the generic you, not you per se Polak.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by pylon

Personally, I think the right move is to simply make it a 100% zero tolerance policy with alcohol and driving.

If you have had a drink in the previous 24 hours, it is illegal to drive. Personally I would have zero issue with it, as I hardly ever drink, and would never miss it. If I never had another drink in my life I really wouldn't care.

But I can understand why some people would be rage mad if they did it. As a lot of people actually believe booze makes their lives better.

Moderate consumption of alcohol, (2 drinks a day for men and 1 for women) has been shown to have the following benefits:

1. Lowers your risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, stroke, and high blood pressure.
2. Lengthens life by up to 18%
3. Improves libido
4. 60% reduction in instances of the common cold.
5. 23% reduction in instances of Alzheimers and dementia.
6. Reduced risk of gallstones.
7. Decreased risk of type 2 diabetes.
8. Improved short term-memory and thinking skills.
9. Reduced stress and its attendant health problems.
10. Increased overall happiness and lower rates of depression.

sources:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/7-health...alcohol-247552
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4053968
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/292179.php


Do you think that cars should also be equipped with devices that disable mobile phones, tablets, and other distracting devices? After all, it's been shown that driving while distracted is essentially identical to driving drunk. Not to mention driving while over-tired. Should cars force you to perform a cognitive test before you step into them?

Taking MADD's worst-case statistics, which factor in all "impairment-related" accidents including in boats, trains, and aircraft, 1,500 Canadians die a year, out of the 250,000 deaths in the whole country we're talking about 0.6% of annual deaths.

Considering that 50,000 ( people die of heart-related conditions every year in this country, and given the undeniable benefits of alcohol consumption on cardiovascular health, making it more difficult to consume alcohol could be argued to be worse for the overall health and well-being of Canadians.

[Daradon]

Distracted driving accidents and fatalities are just about mirroring drunk driving aren't they?

Funny thing about stigmas. 'But I was just checking my phone!' Sounds a lot better than, 'I had six beers last night.' But it's not.

There's no reason to drive doing either.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by driveway

Moderate consumption of alcohol, (2 drinks a day for men and 1 for women) has been shown to have the following benefits:

1. Lowers your risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, stroke, and high blood pressure.
2. Lengthens life by up to 18%
3. Improves libido
4. 60% reduction in instances of the common cold.
5. 23% reduction in instances of Alzheimers and dementia.
6. Reduced risk of gallstones.
7. Decreased risk of type 2 diabetes.
8. Improved short term-memory and thinking skills.
9. Reduced stress and its attendant health problems.
10. Increased overall happiness and lower rates of depression.

sources:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/7-health...alcohol-247552
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4053968
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/292179.php


Do you think that cars should also be equipped with devices that disable mobile phones, tablets, and other distracting devices? After all, it's been shown that driving while distracted is essentially identical to driving drunk. Not to mention driving while over-tired. Should cars force you to perform a cognitive test before you step into them?

Taking MADD's worst-case statistics, which factor in all "impairment-related" accidents including in boats, trains, and aircraft, 1,500 Canadians die a year, out of the 250,000 deaths in the whole country we're talking about 0.6% of annual deaths.

Considering that 50,000 ( people die of heart-related conditions every year in this country, and given the undeniable benefits of alcohol consumption on cardiovascular health, making it more difficult to consume alcohol could be argued to be worse for the overall health and well-being of Canadians.

This ignores alcohol related deaths and illness and domestic issues through over consumption. I would find it difficult to believe that alcohol is a net benefit on society despite the health affects.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by polak

Most of these people are just idiots but they're not violent criminals. People make really, really dumb mistakes.

2nd or 3rd DUI's on the other hand, go nuts. They should definitely never be able to drive again and some jail time is definitely warranted.

The first time you drink and drive is just as stupid as the 2nd or third time you get caught. I have never done it, nor was I ever tempted.

The first time penalty should be just as harsh as the last time - immediate loss of license, upon conviction lifetime loss of license. That penalty will be on top of jail time, fines paid out monthly for the duration of a life sentence. Kill someone and it is the same as first degree murder. Don't kill someone, you are paying 150/month for 25 years. This is beyond a stupid crime and the penalty should be harsh.

Driving comes with great responsibility, if you prove to not be responsible, you shouldn't drive.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

The first time you drink and drive is just as stupid as the 2nd or third time you get caught. I have never done it, nor was I ever tempted.

The first time penalty should be just as harsh as the last time - immediate loss of license, upon conviction lifetime loss of license. That penalty will be on top of jail time, fines paid out monthly for the duration of a life sentence. Kill someone and it is the same as first degree murder. Don't kill someone, you are paying 150/month for 25 years. This is beyond a stupid crime and the penalty should be harsh.

Driving comes with great responsibility, if you prove to not be responsible, you shouldn't drive.

If your goal is punishment that's fine but increasing punishment won't change anything. If the consequence mattered people wouldn't drink and drive because killing yuourself or someone else is a pretty serious consequence.

What should the penalty for reckless driving be? Say driving 200k down the highway?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by GGG

If your goal is punishment that's fine but increasing punishment won't change anything. If the consequence mattered people wouldn't drink and drive because killing yuourself or someone else is a pretty serious consequence.

Well then, high-five on the kill count and be on your way. Run along now.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Distracted driving accidents and fatalities are just about mirroring drunk driving aren't they?

Funny thing about stigmas. 'But I was just checking my phone!' Sounds a lot better than, 'I had six beers last night.' But it's not.

There's no reason to drive doing either.

Using cell phones while driving is about where drinking and driving was in 1981. It's considered kinda naughty, but not taken especially seriously by most folks. It will take some high-profile fatalities (which is inevitable given the number of collisions distracted driving is responsible for) to really change attitudes. Families. Kids. Maybe a celebrity or two.

Though we may not see the social stigma ever reach drinking and driving levels, because it's a lot harder to vilify a cute 19 year old girl or a 46 year old mother of two than it is vilify a bleary, hard-boozing 38 year old male.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by driveway

Do you think that cars should also be equipped with devices that disable mobile phones, tablets, and other distracting devices? After all, it's been shown that driving while distracted is essentially identical to driving drunk. Not to mention driving while over-tired. Should cars force you to perform a cognitive test before you step into them?

100% yes. The technology already exists to do this. A large portion of people are to selfish to regulate themselves, and as a motorcycle rider that has almost been killed more than a few times by idiots on their phones, I would 100% support it. The only communication device that should be allowed in a car while in motion, is a handsfree, voice activated BT system IMO. And there is even debate that those aren't distraction free enough.

And no, I don't care if your bubble wrapped ADD kid can't watch movies, or play Minecraft in the back seat..... we fared just fine without those devices on road trips for decades. Here sport, this is called a coloring book. Knock yourself out.

[GirlySports]

1st offense DUI causing death, death penalty.

let's see you drive drunk now.