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

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Regarding zero tolerance, to those of you in the thread who are in favour of such a policy, what are your thoughts on this scenario:

I go to a Flames game and buy a beer before heading to me seat prior to the national anthems and opening faceoff. I finish my beer sometime during the first period. I don't have another drink for the rest of the game (~2-2.5 hours later). Am I safe to drive home at this point? Is my BAC 0.00?

Probably 0 or close to it...a very rough rule of thumb (bunch of factors at play) is one regular beer is metabolized per hour.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

Probably 0 or close to it...a very rough rule of thumb (bunch of factors at play) is one regular beer is metabolized per hour.

Yeah, I've heard that rule of thumb too, but how accurate is it? If I finish a beer and then take a BAC test exactly one hour later, will I report 0.00? Only the most unreasonable MADD zealots would say that you shouldn't be able to drive home from a hockey game during which you consumed only one beer, but if we ever have a 0.00 zero tolerance law, would you be in violation of the law for doing so?

[Thunderball]

I don't see how any Human Rights Lawyer in their right mind can be in favor of something so contrary to legal principles.... which tells me she owes some people some bad favors in exchange for winning. I wonder if MADD or the police aided her campaign.

The BC ruling is really just persuasive on AB law, and I suspect if they allow it, it'll be smashed by a judge's ruling pretty quick.

Nothing bugs me more than suspension of civil liberties, suspension of due process, clandestine implementation of social conservative/temperance values and reaching for the low hanging fruit in the name of "risk avoidance" and "safety"

If Premier Redford and company want to lower drunk driving... here's a novel concept. Maybe invest money in 24 hour LRT service.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

If Premier Redford and company want to lower drunk driving... here's a novel concept. Maybe invest money in 24 hour LRT service.

Now that's crazy talk! Why are you coming up with real solutions when all we need are politicians passing laws that are full of fluff?

[Weirdness]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

If Premier Redford and company want to lower drunk driving... here's a novel concept. Maybe invest money in 24 hour LRT service.

A great idea, but as far as I know there is only one tram line that operates 24 hours a day, and it's in new york. The cost of implementing such a system in calgary will cost far more than what anyone's willing to pay.

Edit: its one of four 24 hr systems in the US, likely one of a couple dozen in the world.

[Beerfest]

Originally Posted by Weirdness

A great idea, but as far as I know there is only one tram line that operates 24 hours a day, and it's in new york. The cost of implementing such a system in calgary will cost far more than what anyone's willing to pay.

Why's that?

Doesnt it already run 19-20 hours a day?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Weirdness

A great idea, but as far as I know there is only one tram line that operates 24 hours a day, and it's in new york. The cost of implementing such a system in calgary will cost far more than what anyone's willing to pay.

Edit: its one of four 24 hr systems in the US, likely one of a couple dozen in the world.

24 hour transit is not a unique concept. Transit that runs late enough to be used by people going home from bars, who are likely the most high risk group to drink and drive, is even less unique. Hell, I lived in a two bit college town in the ultra rich state of Michigan that had a free late night bus service from the bar district to the area where most people lived.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by fotze

The only way to stop drunken driving is to not drink and drive. Remember that thread Ken?

Haha, that was an awesome thread. Some "tiger" type poster was going off on Ken002 for trying to come up with solutions to drinking and driving, saying people just need to not drink and drive or else they're stupid.

Followed by people posting sarcastic solutions to other problems...

Starving children in Africa - Food for children in Africa
People commiting murder - Murder is wrong, people should no longer murder others
People do drugs - Get rid of drugs

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Beerfest

Why's that?

Doesnt it already run 19-20 hours a day?

A train that stops service at 1:00 or 2:00 am on Friday/Saturday is not particularly useful as an alternative, especially in a City where its almost impossible to hail a cab.

[transplant99]

Anyone who truly believes that this measure is one to try and curb drunk driving needs to take a step back and have a true assessment of what is being proposed.

Its so freaking transparent its not even funny any more, its just sad.

[MarchHare]

The cost of implementing such a system in calgary will cost far more than what anyone's willing to pay.

We've seen posters in this thread who are more than willing to throw away their rights and civil liberties in the name of "saving lives", so surely they'd be ok with spending a few extra million in tax dollars each year to run a 24-hour transit service.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

We've seen posters in this thread who are more than willing to throw away their rights and civil liberties in the name of "saving lives", so surely they'd be ok with spending a few extra million in tax dollars each year to run a 24-hour transit service.

Suck it up, saving lives!

[Weirdness]

Originally Posted by valo403

24 hour transit is not a unique concept. Transit that runs late enough to be used by people going home from bars, who are likely the most high risk group to drink and drive, is even less unique. Hell, I lived in a two bit college town in the ultra rich state of Michigan that had a free late night bus service from the bar district to the area where most people lived.

Having a 24 hour LRT service is pretty rare though, and that's what I was getting at. The cost involved is more than just running it for a few more hours, how will maintenance be done if the tracks are always in use?

[return to the red]

Spoke with a few people close to me who are traffic cops and they said they won't know all the details until the new year and then after that it would probably take another 6 months to be implemented.

From what they were saying its still going to be a .08 limit but like 24 hour suspensions the suspensions or vehicle seizures will not be able to be appealed in courts. Again this is all up in the air at the moment and even the cops don't know what all the details are until the new year most likely.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Weirdness

Having a 24 hour LRT service is pretty rare though, and that's what I was getting at. The cost involved is more than just running it for a few more hours, how will maintenance be done if the tracks are always in use?

Same way they do it now? Close down sections of the LRT during non-peak hours (e.g. weekends) and replace the train with shuttle bus service between the affected stations?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Weirdness

Having a 24 hour LRT service is pretty rare though, and that's what I was getting at. The cost involved is more than just running it for a few more hours, how will maintenance be done if the tracks are always in use?

Then it shut it down later on Thurs/Fri/Sat nights. I guarantee you'll save more lives and have fewer DUI convictions and see a much more easily correlated cause due to this activity than you ever will with flimsy legislation targeting the tiniest and least dangerous group.

Oh right, but that would cost money as opposed to making it....thats the catch.

People have to see right now that this legislation isnt about 'saving lives.' No one gives a rat's ass about random people's lives, this legislation is about bringing in revenue, the saving lives bit is a convenient smokescreen that no 'decent' person is going to challenge.

They've picked something that will allow them to get away with it because of the inane and irrational overprotective and oversecure mommies. Its no different than the US' fanatical leaps all credited to 'National Security.' They just want more power/control/money without giving anything up and so they need a cause that they can exploit where people will blindly, and willingly give up their rights because of all the voices shouting that they have to or they're stupid or inhuman.

"Dont drink and drive, its about safety and security and putting lives at risk, even that one or two beers after work or at the hockey game, if you even smell alcohol you shouldnt even look at a car, blah, blah, blah."

Look where that blind attitude is going to get us.

[Coys1882]

I don't mind - if people are in a more lucid state worrying about .05 than they would be when worrying about .08, I'm ok with that.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

I don't see any reason why someone with a BAC under .08 should be punished if tested at a checkpoint, but if you give police a reason to pull you over to administer the test, .05 seems like a reasonable level to impound your vehicle.

Also, crucify repeat offenders along deerfoot trail.

[GP_Matt]

I don't really think it is about pulling in more money. I think the goal is to be seen as doing something to solve a problem without spending money on it. The election is coming up and they want to be able to say that they are working to curb drunk driving because any party that argues against that can be painted as a monster. It is a cheap way to score political points. This goes hand in hand with banning things which governments love to do. It doesn't cost much to implement a ban and it shows you care.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

I don't see any reason why someone with a BAC under .08 should be punished if tested at a checkpoint, but if you give police a reason to pull you over to administer the test, .05 seems like a reasonable level to impound your vehicle.

Also, crucify repeat offenders along deerfoot trail.

You mean by driving on a street where there is a check-stop?