11-23-2011, 12:56 PM
|
#121
|
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Late to the discussion, but adding my two cents.
If the goal of this is to get people off the road who have been drinking, then do away with this whole .05, 24 hours suspension, BS. Lower the limit to .05 as it's going to have a similar effect. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most people aren't going to want to have a 24 hour suspension, tow fees, etc, so they're going to treat it as if .05 is the new 'legal' limit and won't drink if driving.
I agree with valo, not having any due process is baloney.
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 12:56 PM
|
#122
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
Here, I did your homework for you:
Section (5) is the important one here. It states that if your BAC is determined to be below .08, the officer must return your license and any temporary suspension is immediately lifted. So, as I said above, being below .08 IS NOT an offence.
|
I found that interesting as well. It basically allows for a suspension until you can prove otherwise, which seems acceptable to me. I wonder how easy it is to get a cop to actually conduct that test under those circumstances, if it's readily available I don't have an issue with the law as it stands now.
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 12:57 PM
|
#123
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent Wookie
Fair enough... I stand corrected... technically, under80mg% is NOT an offence.
I would suggest that does not happen in practice however.
|
Just wondering why you think it doesn't happen in practice. Are police unwilling to administer a test under those circumstances?
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 01:00 PM
|
#124
|
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
I found that interesting as well. It basically allows for a suspension until you can prove otherwise, which seems acceptable to me. I wonder how easy it is to get a cop to actually conduct that test under those circumstances, if it's readily available I don't have an issue with the law as it stands now.
|
That will be the next factor. How many test units will be available? Will all patrol cars on duty carry one?
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 01:02 PM
|
#125
|
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne7en
MADD really needs to reevaluate their priorities. People who re-offend, people with extreme B.A.C. levels instead of drivers in the .05-.08 range.
|
Why? It would stand to reason that focusing on the area with the highest # of deaths would be more logical than focusing on the area with the higher BAC.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 01:05 PM
|
#126
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Why? It would stand to reason that focusing on the area with the highest # of deaths would be more logical than focusing on the area with the higher BAC.
|
Don't the stats indicate that people with highly elevated BAC's are responsible for more deaths? Perhaps I'm not remembering correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 01:10 PM
|
#127
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: YSJ (1979-2002) -> YYC (2002-2022) -> YVR (2022-present)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Why? It would stand to reason that focusing on the area with the highest # of deaths would be more logical than focusing on the area with the higher BAC.
|
Is there a study showing that the most alcohol-related deaths come from drivers in the .05-.08 range? If so, can you link to it? Intuitively, I would think most fatalities are caused by people who grossly exceed the legal limit, but I'd like to see some hard data either way.
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 01:11 PM
|
#128
|
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Don't the stats indicate that people with highly elevated BAC's are responsible for more deaths? Perhaps I'm not remembering correctly.
|
Do they? I don't know.
Higher BAC probably = more dangerous in general, but the higher BAC there's probably less people who get to that point as well.
If the percentage chance of a death with > 0.08 is 1%, and only 0.01% for 0.05 - 0.08, but there's more than 10 times the # of people on the road in the 0.05-0.08 range, then it makes more sense to focus on the 0.05-0.08 range (from a purely utilitarian point of view).
I don't know what the actual #'s are though.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 01:12 PM
|
#129
|
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Why? It would stand to reason that focusing on the area with the highest # of deaths would be more logical than focusing on the area with the higher BAC.
|
Really? Where are you finding stats?
http://www.madd.ca/english/research/BACnumbers8799.PDF
I think the reasoning for focusing on repeat offenders is quite obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 01:13 PM
|
#130
|
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
Is there a study showing that the most alcohol-related deaths come from drivers in the .05-.08 range? If so, can you link to it? Intuitively, I would think most fatalities are caused by people who grossly exceed the legal limit, but I'd like to see some hard data either way.
|
No idea, I wasn't making the claim.
I don't agree intuitively just because I think the # of people who drive after 2-3 beers far exceeds the # of people who drive after getting bombed.
But that kind of intuition is probably heavily influenced experience with a group of people.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 01:13 PM
|
#131
|
|
Scoring Winger
|
nm
Last edited by Ne7en; 11-23-2011 at 01:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 01:15 PM
|
#132
|
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne7en
|
I didn't claim any stats. You were the one making a claim, which is why I asked why.
Asking why isn't a counter claim or a contradiction.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 01:17 PM
|
#133
|
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
EDIT: Removed, noticed you edited your post after I replied.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 01:19 PM
|
#134
|
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Does this law also cover driving while under the influence of marijuana? If so, what are the legal limits there, if any? Do they have testers for that?
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 01:21 PM
|
#135
|
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Why? It would stand to reason that focusing on the area with the highest # of deaths would be more logical than focusing on the area with the higher BAC.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I didn't claim any stats. You were the one making a claim, which is why I asked why.
Asking why isn't a counter claim or a contradiction.
|
Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that people with higher BAC are a greater risk to public, therefore the risk of death being higher. Also a repeat offender as compared to a smaller woman who might have had a drink at dinner and is nearing that .05 mark?
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 01:27 PM
|
#136
|
|
The new goggles also do nothing.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne7en
Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that people with higher BAC are a greater risk to public
|
Individually yes, but as I said above it depends on the total # of drivers in each range as well.
It makes no sense to chase 10 really dangerous drivers over 100 drivers that are only half as dangerous. (assuming equal resource utilization and effictiveness)
The PDF you provided speaks to that though, and it would seem that the risk from high impairment is so much higher that it overcomes the difference in size of the groups.
Though something is bothering me about how I'm looking at the numbers, like I'm missing something, so I'll have to think about it a bit more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne7en
Also a repeat offender as compared to a smaller woman who might have had a drink at dinner and is nearing that .05 mark?
|
Repeat offenders are a whole different thing and I totally agree that they should be sqashed hard.
(Then again I'm in favour of either a 0.05 or zero tolerance for alcohol and driving)
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 01:53 PM
|
#137
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
|
As a few others have pointed out in this thread, I don't understand why they don't just make the limit lower (0.05) instead of all this "grey area" bs. Leave the discretion out, and nab anyone over the new limit. Then there's no argument about it being unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to The Yen Man For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 02:00 PM
|
#138
|
|
Scoring Winger
|
why .05 thou? why not just make it zero alcohol tolerance?
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 02:03 PM
|
#139
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2004
Location: YSJ (1979-2002) -> YYC (2002-2022) -> YVR (2022-present)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne7en
why .05 thou? why not just make it zero alcohol tolerance?
|
Because many responsible, law-abiding citizens enjoy having a beer or glass of wine with dinner and a single drink does not impair your ability to drive?
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2011, 02:04 PM
|
#140
|
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne7en
why .05 thou? why not just make it zero alcohol tolerance?
|
Probably because the .05 covers the glass of wine or two at dinner, or the beer after work theory.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:13 PM.
|
|
