Driving under the legal limit? Doesn't matter, your vehicle is impounded anyway.

[Two Fivenagame]

I wish a powerful lobbyist group would get behind a cause that kills waaaaaaaaaay more people than drunk driving...

Mothers Against Salty Foods.

[MarchHare]

Question to those of you who support this: do you think people should be allowed to drive after having only one glass of wine or beer with their meal at a restaurant?

The outcome of this law, as was seen in BC, is that small businesses are severely hurt because people are too afraid to have even one drink before driving.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I support this, it's been effective in BC on cutting down the deaths from drunk drivers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...aths-down.html

Deaths from impaired driving in B.C. have been cut in half since new drinking-driving regulations took effect last fall, says provincial Attorney General Barry Penner.

Penner said 22 people have been killed since the law was changed in September, while the five-year average for that period had been 45 deaths.

He said there's also been a drop during that period of between 75 and 80 per cent in the number of drinking and driving criminal charges laid.
The attorney general called it, "a pretty dramatic shift in public behaviour."



Deaths aside (which sounds a bit callous) I'd imagine that it's also lowered other shenanigans like injuries due to (partially?) drunk driving, property damage, insurance rates, legal costs/fees, etc.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I support this, it's been effective in BC on cutting down the deaths from drunk drivers.

So it was the people with a BAC of 0.05-0.08 causing all the traffic deaths?

I call bull on that one.....

Unless you have a total police state present, it is impossible to keep super drunks from passing out behind the wheel and causing collisions from time to time. No amount of punishing people for trivial amounts of booze will solve this.

[Puppet Guy]

some reading about MADD for everyone:

http://www.drunkard.com/issues/08_02...hting_madd.htm

http://alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html

The biggest problem in reducing drunk driving fatalities now consists of the hard core of alcoholic drivers who repeatedly drive with BAC's of .15 or higher. But MADD has now decided to go after social drinkers and to eliminate driving after drinking any amount of alcohol beverage. This change appears to reflect the influence of a growing neo-prohibitionist movement within MADD.
The founding president of MADD, Candy Lightner, left in disgust from the organization that she herself created because of its change in goals. "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned," she says. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." 5 Ms. Lightner has emphasized the importance of distinguishing between alcohol and drinking on one hand and drunk driving on the other.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Agent86

0.07 doesn't mean sober. If the police pull someone over who has been driving recklessly (and the police rarely pull random people over), they find out there is alcohol in their system, then maybe they shouldn't be on the road to start with and a 24 hour suspension can act as a wake up call.

What are you talking about? If someone is driving recklessly, drunk or not, that is against the law.

If they are being reckless and happen to be drunk then it is a double whammy.

This law punishes sober people who go thru a checkstop and get their car impounded even though they are stone cold sober. It gives the police too much discretion.

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I support this, it's been effective in BC on cutting down the deaths from drunk drivers.

I'm not even going to ask for evidence, there is absolutely no way to prove that.

Even if you had evidence it is correlation at best, no proof of causation.


As MarchHare has stated, we have a legal limit for a reason. Cops also have the ability to charge you with drunk driving even if you are under and are displaying signs of being intoxicated.

Why give them more power to unjustifiably impound your vehicle?

If you are drunk then you are drunk. We have sobriety tests. We have cops to police the roads and make sure you aren't driving recklessly. We have checkstops.

Why are new laws being introduced to punish sober people? What we need to do is go after the drunks.

This law, in no way, shape or form does that at all.

[Brewmaster]

I don't think it's the drivers from 0.05 to 0.08 that should be the target of concern. It's the drivers that are ****faced drunk, well over the legal limit that are really putting people in danger.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Personally, I think MADD is aiming at overall prohibition as opposed to simply eliminating drinking and driving.

This is completely true. Candice Lightner, the founder of MADD, even resigned because she felt the organization had evolved to an outright prohibition lobby rather than an anti-drunk driving group.

In 2002, Lightner stated that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers..._Drunk_Driving

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Two Fivenagame

Mothers Against Salty Foods.

Mothers against fat people?

It still boggles my that more people in the world are dying due to over eating than actual starvation. Damn fatties costing taxpayers!

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The outcome of this law, as was seen in BC, is that small businesses are severely hurt because people are too afraid to have even one drink before driving.

Didn't they say this about banning smoking? I'm not disagreeing per se, just thinking out loud.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is completely true. Candice Lightner, the founder of MADD, even resigned because she felt the organization had evolved to an outright prohibition lobby rather than an anti-drunk driving group.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers..._Drunk_Driving

This makes me MADD as hell...

[Cecil Terwilliger]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/rel...624/story.html

No relief for drivers caught by recalled breathalyzers

More than 1,200 drivers blew in the "warn" range before police decided to recall the province's breathalyzer machines in November to have them adjusted, but their tickets still stand.

Despite the tough new drinking and driving rules, many people are still choosing to drive while impaired. The monthly average since the new rules were introduced is 557 people blowing in the "warn" range of .05 to .08 blood alcohol and 1,129 blowing in the "fail" range of over .08 each month in B.C., Martin said.

A faulty machine is not listed as a grounds for appeal. However, if someone believes they weren't drunk, they can appeal, Martin said.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Why is any suspension necessary? This gives cops the discretion to punish people who have not broken the law with zero judicial oversight.

Its not punishment, its a matter of public safety.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I'm not even going to ask for evidence, there is absolutely no way to prove that.

Even if you had evidence it is correlation at best, no proof of causation.

Since when has the government cared about causation vs correlation? The same year the law was brought in, drunk driving deaths were down dramatically (it's been in the herald and sun, as well as numerous BC publications, feel free to google it). The people who brought the bill in aren't going to say it didn't work when the numbers dropped, or care if it was correlation or causation.

[Hilch]

Originally Posted by Joborule

If someone can't handle of sip of alcohol they perhaps they shouldn't drink at all. We don't need to be THAT extreme.

Maybe not, but why have any grey area for people to get off?

It seems no matter who I'm with it's always a different number. "I've only had X beers I'll be fine to drive." Some guys it's 1, some it's 6. Where do you draw the line?

[flamingreen]

I have never read an article on a drunk driving fatality where the driver was half the legal limit.

I don't believe deterrents have any effect on stopping people who are callous enough to commit crimes. Suspensions and legal fees will not stop someone now, who previously got behind the wheel smashed.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by hilch

maybe not, but why have any grey area for people to get off?

It seems no matter who i'm with it's always a different number. "i've only had x beers i'll be fine to drive." some guys it's 1, some it's 6. where do you draw the line?

0.08 blood-alcohol content

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its not punishment, its a matter of public safety.

Punish all, even the innocent, and you're bound to have some guilty people in there. All for the sake of public safety.

Makes sense to me.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its not punishment, its a matter of public safety.

So if you blew a .05 and had your license suspended and vehicle impounded (at your own expense), you wouldn't view that as a punishment?

[Rathji]

Just punish the drunk guys with watermelons on their heads. That solves everything.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Punish all, even the innocent, and you're bound to have some guilty people in there. All for the sake of public safety.

Makes sense to me.

Show me where they're punishing all?

I have no problem with police handing out 24 hours suspensions, its better to be safe then have to clean up body parts.