Victim of deadly crash hated the thought of drunk driving

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

I've been in cabs where the driver is nice and talking lots, then at the end where you say credit/debit, they get mad. My personal thoughts are many of them would like no paper trial for CRA.

It will be so satisfying when their cartel is shattered by Uber.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Personally I think that drunk drivers can be fixed without expensive jail time.

Here's my plan

First time DUI, no accident
- insurance rate triples automatically for 5 years, if your under the age of 18, You cannot be insured
Drivers license suspension for 6 months
- Car is seized for 6 months, and you pay the costs of storage
- You have to make 5 public service messages, and 5 public speaking appearances
- you have 52 public services (sweeping streets, cleaning camp toilets, etc) all while wearing a shirt that states that you are a drunk driver

First accident DUI, accident up to and including death
- you cannot be insured for 10 years, your vehicle is seized and sold
- 5 year sentence to be served in the community
- Drivers license suspended for 5 years.
- You have to make 10 public service messages and 10 public speaking engagements
- You have 5 years of community services and have to wear a shirt that reads, I drove drunk and killed a person.
- you have to meet the victims family face to face
- You have to volunteer at a rehabilitation facility or hospital and work with victims of impared drivers.

Second incident of DUI, no accident
- two year driving ban
- un-insurable for 2 years, minimum of 5x the standard insurance rate
- You cannot take a job that involves a motor vehicle
- Publice service requirements including working with drunk driving victims.
- You have to disclose your drunk driving convictions to employers.

Second incident of DUI can include accidents and death, (this is the second DUI overall)
- Permanent driving ban
- uninsurable.
- 10 year suspended sentence
- public service reaquirements, including working for advocacy groups for DUI educations and work with victims of drunk driving
- Meet with your victims
- a massive fine
- Your car is sold
- You have to wear a label that designates you as a drunk driver who hurt or killed someone when in public.

If you break the terms of the above

Automatic 5 year prison term, 10 year on second offense.

I don't really have a problem with any of these suggestions, but I'm not sure it would reduce it much. Stiffer penalties for crimes rarely have the desired effect. If a person commits a crime they don't think about getting caught. They plan on getting away. It's just human nature. That goes double for drunk driving. Your already impaired and not thinking straight. Drunk people don't think about getting caught.

To fix the problem you need better access to alternatives and education. As has been mentioned in this thread a few times, the sheer fact that Calgary is so spread out with low density adds to the problem. Not much we can do about that. We're addicted to our vehicles, and have good reason to be.

I know in Australia it is a little less of a problem, but they are very gung ho on their checkstops. Not only are there more of them, but they have no qualms about stopping and testing every single driver causing pretty significant traffic snarls. It used to be this way anyway, haven't been there in a while. Anyway, I guess increased enforcement to increase the fear of getting caught is a possible solution, but it will come at a cost.

[Righteous1]

Originally Posted by T@T

just too add

4) more taxi cabs

Not that it would make a difference but I wonder how many times drunk drivers have tried to get a cab at 2:30am?

Stupid #taxi never works and racks up my phone bill

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I don't really have a problem with any of these suggestions, but I'm not sure it would reduce it much. Stiffer penalties for crimes rarely have the desired effect. If a person commits a crime they don't think about getting caught. They plan on getting away. It's just human nature. That goes double for drunk driving. Your already impaired and not thinking straight. Drunk people don't think about getting caught.

To fix the problem you need better access to alternatives and education. As has been mentioned in this thread a few times, the sheer fact that Calgary is so spread out with low density adds to the problem. Not much we can do about that. We're addicted to our vehicles, and have good reason to be.

I know in Australia it is a little less of a problem, but they are very gung ho on their checkstops. Not only are there more of them, but they have no qualms about stopping and testing every single driver causing pretty significant traffic snarls. It used to be this way anyway, haven't been there in a while. Anyway, I guess increased enforcement to increase the fear of getting caught is a possible solution, but it will come at a cost.

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.

[CliffFletcher]

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.

Nobody thinks killing someone in a drunk driving collision is acceptable. They do it because they don't think they'll have a collision and they don't think they'll get caught in a check stop.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

Nobody pays attention? Drink driving is regarded as one of the most contemptible things a person can do in the eyes of most people. It's only notch up from pedophilia in most peoples' eyes.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

The message has already gotten through to everyone who is capable of understanding the message. But some people just don't give a damn. You can educate them all they want and they won't care because they don't think it will happen to them.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

What is the recidivism rate for drunk driving convictions? I suspect the people capable of reason and thoughtful decisions change their behaviour after a first offense. The rest are probably immune to reason.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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

But that's after the fact. It doesn't undo the damage if they kill someone. It might satisfy the public's appetite for punishment and revenge, but it doesn't stop it from happening in the future.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

Wait - you know multiple people who have been convicted of drunk driving, and who laughed it off and continued to drive drunk afterwards? What kind of d-bags do you hang out with?

One of the things that's interesting about the anger that flares up over drunk driving is how there doesn't seem to be comparable outrage over distracted drivers using cellphones, even though that's now responsible for more collisions than impaired driving. Would the public be onboard with public whipping of drivers caught texting in their cars? Probably not. Or not yet, anyway. A couple high-profile fatalities will change attitudes pretty quick, I imagine.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Potential jail time isn't a deterrent for ANY crime but I don't see what that has to do with punishing murderers and protecting their future victims. For me, half the reason I want drunk driving scum bags locked up for longer has more to do with keeping them off the streets so they can't kill and maim anymore. I know a lot of people nowadays are more concerned with rehabilitation, treating the criminal "fairly" and minimizing jail time because "it's not a deterrent" than justice and preventing future crimes (hard to drive drunk when you're in jail for 15 years) but I'm afraid I just can't see that angle. Harsh punishment is best because it ensures that at least one loser won't do it again, even if it won't stop others in the future.

I've been drunk hundreds of times but have never driven in that state. I'll walk before I do that. I can't understand how anyone would think it's okay even if they are drunk and using the excuse that their judgment is impaired. Well, maybe you should stop drinking then because you clearly can't handle your booze. Booze impairing your judgment as an excuse to drink and drive is literally the stupidest shiat I've ever heard. If you do this, you're nothing more than a selfish piece of garbage, end of story.

Seriously, does it harm society on some level to give drunk drivers harsher penalties and revoke their driving privileges? I can't see how it would. I suppose that criminals would be inconvenienced/incarcerated to a greater degree but I don't see how it would adversely affect society at large in any meaningful way. Oh wait, it wouldn't deter others and would cost money so why bother? Also, we don't want the murderer's life to be too adversely affected, that would be a real tragedy.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by ernie

Those aren't the root cause.

The root cause is straight up stupidity and/or lack of concern for their fellow man. Stupidity to do it. Stupidity to not recognize you do that stupid thing when drinking.

Here's my issue- I am offering some practical solutions and you are offering name calling. Don't get me wrong, I agree that drunk driving is stupid. But I don't think telling people that "Don't drive drunk- it's stupid" is any kind of deterrent. However taking away as many excuses as possible will hopefully help prevent people from making those decisions. And maybe as more and more people find alternatives, they will get out of the habit of doing it. I knew people who would drive drunk all the time, because of a combination of never getting caught, and not having alternative methods of transport.

Just this past weekend a bunch of us went to Beer Fest, and there was some significant planning involved to make sure we all had safe ways of getting to and from the event. I'm just suggesting that it be made easier.

It won't stop all drunk drivers; I have no delusions there. However it will put a significant dent in the people who are not habitual drunk drivers.

[polak]

I'm a bit less "lock them up and throw away the key" then you guys. Stiffer sentencing is okay but lets not get carried away on the first timers.

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.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Daradon

While I'm not against stiffer penalties for impaired driving causing injury or death, your comparisons seem out of whack and mostly hand wringing hyperbole. Do you have stats to back it up? If I'm wrong I'll own it. But penalties for impaired driving causing death (and impaired driving penalties in general) have gone up dramatically in the last twenty years. A friend of my stepdads spend several years in prison for just that.

As for weed and the prostitution question, I too think they are wrongky focused on compared to real ills of society, but let's not get carried away here. I don't know anyone who has spent multiple years in jail for either. Remember, you said 'having weed', not selling. I think weed should be legal as it is, but regardless, you didn't talk about selling which we both know is punished more harshly than possesion.

Oh it's totally hyperbole, but it's hyperbole based on very reasonable assumptions. Yes, no punishment may deter a crime, but most people are aware you can rack up many DUIs before going to jail even once. It's mostly fines and suspended licenses we see for those, even for people with multiple DUI arrests. If people knew they could (not necessarily will) 5 years for getting a DUI, I gotta think that would at least make people think a little more seriously about doing it. $500 fine and suspended license or 5 years? I'd be willing to risk a $500 fine and a suspended license...hell no to risking 5 years in jail.

Any less than 5 years in jail for DUI causing death is a bad sentence, made even worse by the time served credit that gives them credit for double or triple the time served in pre-trial custody. Drawing out the start of a trial can turn a 5 year sentence into a 2 year one very quickly. The punishment is not severe enough, its effective involuntary manslaughter at best (and really it's negligent homicide)

Yeah, the weed/hooker comparisons were maybe a bit much, but now the sentences for possessing over 1oz or getting caught with a hooker can be very harsh now that the feds have stiffened the laws. Drunk driving for whatever reason seems to get far too much of a pass in terms of being a serious crime. It's basically viewed too much as a "mistake" rather than "negligence" or "lack of concern for others lives" which is what it really is.

Edit: lol at Polak going with the "mistakes" card right before I posted this.

[polak]

Negligence and mistake go pretty much hand in hand.

"failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances"

... in other words ...

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by polak

I'm a bit less "lock them up and throw away the key" then you guys. Stiffer sentencing is okay but lets not get carried away on the first timers.

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.

I think most people struggle with the fact that yes, even though it is a "mistake", that same mistake can take away countless lives.

444 people were killed and 6,649 people were injured from alcohol related collisions from 2009-2013 in Alberta alone. In 2013 alone, 80 people were killed. That's more than 1.5 people a week.

The "mistake" is playing with fire and somehow people think its still acceptable. CDC has a stat where they figure the average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 (!!) times before their first arrest.

I don't know where the happy medium is when it comes to sentencing. But people, especially those who were picked up at a roadside/pulled over by cops/non-injury accident/etc., need to realize how serious of a crime this is and the incredible potential they put themselves (legally, physically, etc.) and the general public in.

I don't know how much more public awareness, etc. can really happen. MADD Canada has a budget of 16 million dollars. 11+ million of that is spent on "Public Education & Awareness, and research". Never mind the amount of money police/provincial government/federal government put in to these initiatives as well.

Again, I'm not saying lock them up and throw away the key, but there is an incredible problem with drunk driving in this city, in this province, and in this country.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by polak

Negligence and mistake go pretty much hand in hand.

"failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances"

... in other words ...

You are fully aware that you will make bad decisions when under the influence of alcohol, this is not some unknown fact. It obviously impairs the abilities of the brain to make rational decisions. Being fully aware of that fact, you know that when you drive to a bar/buddy's house/whatever, and that you may drink, you know you may make the decision to drink and drive.

So its only a mistake after you've made all the choices when you were of sound mind. Poor decision making with foreknowledge of possible consequences leads to the mistake, but the decisions made were not mistakes, they were made with full knowledge of possible consequences. Driving to a place where you know you may consume alcohol (which you know will impair decision making) is knowingly putting yourself in that situation. Otherwise, was it a mistake to drive drunk without getting caught? That's how people rationalize it unfortunately: it's only a mistake if you get caught. And sometimes they only get caught after killing a few people first.

[polak]

Yeah I could agree with that. They are making the conscious decision to drive to the bar and then to start drinking. But there's also probably many times where they start drinking with the "I'll get cab home" mentality and then when they're drunk they decide that they can drive.

The latter would fit into a very stupid stupid mistake. But I agree with your general idea.

Honestly, just like with negligence, the outcomes will unfortunately always play a part in the legal consequence.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Here's my issue- I am offering some practical solutions and you are offering name calling. Don't get me wrong, I agree that drunk driving is stupid. But I don't think telling people that "Don't drive drunk- it's stupid" is any kind of deterrent. However taking away as many excuses as possible will hopefully help prevent people from making those decisions. And maybe as more and more people find alternatives, they will get out of the habit of doing it. I knew people who would drive drunk all the time, because of a combination of never getting caught, and not having alternative methods of transport.

Just this past weekend a bunch of us went to Beer Fest, and there was some significant planning involved to make sure we all had safe ways of getting to and from the event. I'm just suggesting that it be made easier.

It won't stop all drunk drivers; I have no delusions there. However it will put a significant dent in the people who are not habitual drunk drivers.

I was responding to your root cause comment. The root cause has nothing to do with number of services available and everything to do with the individual.

I've lived in numerous cities including Calgary. I have never ever had an issue taking a safe way home be it a cab, a designated driver, or a bus. All those things are available and easily so. If waiting for a cab or needing to put 5 minutes extra effort into planning is the reason some potential "non-habitual" drunk drivers go out and drunk drive it boils down to the exact same thing. It's a cop out to blame anything other than idiocy and disregard for yours and others lives.

Sure cabs might help mitigate the idiocy...I don't disagree with that. But it isn't the root cause. It's not even a corrective action. It's a containment action.


I even somewhat understand the person who goes out thinking he'll never drink and drive but does so in the end. I understand it (somewhat) precisely ONCE. It's stupid. The person will admit it was stupid. Doing a second time crosses the line to complete disregard. No matter the circumstances.

[polak]

What about charging an arm and a leg for parking anywhere near a bar on the weekend?

Lets face it, if you are downtown on a weekend night, you either live there or you're going to a bar or some event where there will be drinking. So give out passes to residents and charge everyone else crazy amounts? Yeah it screws over the sober people but it's not like they can't take a cab either?

The main reason people drink and drive is cause they don't want to take a cab/public transit. Make it waaaay too expensive to drive to a bar. Problem solved?

[CaptainCrunch]

How about forcing people to hand their car keys in for safe keeping when they get to the bar.

I know it puts responsibility on the bar owners though.

And how do you handle house parties, not every drinking and driving incident originates with a bar.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And how do you handle house parties, not every drinking and driving incident originates with a bar.

You can't. Only way is to make breathalyzer ignitions mandatory.

You'll still have jackasses that mod theirs.

[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.

[FlamesAddiction]

I vote for more checkpoints and permanent bans on anyone caught. No second chances and no exceptions. I think people would really think twice if they knew they had a serious chance of being caught and that being caught would pretty much ruin them.

[polak]

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.

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.