have you ever had a dui, or been close?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by redforever

Cry me a river, I am fed up!!! I have had it with the suggestions that education is not working, let us try something else. The onus should be on the DRUNK DRIVERS, not the INNOCENT PUBLIC.

It is the innocent public who alll too often pays with their lives for the discretions of those who wish to drink but not take plans to get home after they drive.

Then please explain to me what I should have done with my example of the time I drove when I shouldn't have.

- I had two plans. One involved Calgary Transit but I got incorrect info. Plan #2 was to call a taxi.
- I could not call anybody. Anybody I could have called was either also intoxicated or out of town.

I was left with two options. Fall alseep in a snowbank and die for certain in the -20 degree weather, sleep in the car and have many hours to risk getting a DUI, or take my chances on the road.

Fotze had a great idea- use the taxes on booze to pay for initiatives to get dunks off the road. I would even pay more for my beer if I knew it was going to pay for such things.

Nobody is saying it is a perfect solution, nor will it get all the drunks off the streets. But what I am saying is let's have some options available. Not every night of drinking is planned, and certainly not every drinker has the responsibility to plan such a night.

But we all know what our reaction is if somebody in this city now tries to call a cab during a busy period- we all laugh and say "good luck." We all also know that transit in this city doesn't run very late- in Winnipeg I would often take the bus home from the bar after closing time.

You are right- anybody driving should be 100% responsible all the time. But the fact of the matter is many drivers are not- and we as a society take measures to make sure the irresponsible people don't harm themselves or others. We install cable fences between the two directions on Deerfoot to save people from those who fall asleep behind the wheel. We built a boardwalk on the top of Sulphur Mountain in Banff so that people wouldn't fall off. There are "Don't jump over handrail" signs on bridges. There are some bridges with netting or chainlink fences to keep people from throwing stuff off bridges. The list goes on.

"Don't drink and drive" is a good message. However a better message would be "Don't drink and drive- and here are your realistic options:"

[Ice]

I don't mean this to come off as rude, but if you knew you were going out drinking, your best option was to arrange a safe way home before you left. That way you are safe and so is everyone else.

Originally Posted by ikaris

The law is very clear: if you are over the limit, you are considered under the influence and therefore should be charged with a DUI. A police officer is not qualified to say that we will let you off on a 24 hour "just because" if you're over the limit.

I certainly agree with you that IF the grounds exist to lay the charge, the charge should be laid. Unfortunately, in the real world, there are several factors, some of which I have outlined above that CAN dissuade an officer from doing to full impaired. Qualified is maybe not the correct word there.

Originally Posted by ikaris

On the flip side, police officers have charged impaired drivers with DUI when they have been under the limit. In almost all cases, these charges are overturned in court. This further underlines the fact in how police officers have to enforce the law. There is a reason these laws are so verbose; it's to ensure that discretionary policies like this are avoided. The fact that some police officers ignore the very stringent intent of the law is what I have issue with.

Ignore is also not the correct word. They make a conscious decision to not fulfill the obligations and duties bestowed on them.

I managed to find a great story by W5 broadcast about a year ago. It outlines many of the frustrations that both the public and police officers feel and that have been outlined in this thread.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0103?hub=WFive
(on the right hand side theres a 'video' link with part 1 and part 2.)
Enjoy.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I certainly agree with you that IF the grounds exist to lay the charge, the charge should be laid. Unfortunately, in the real world, there are several factors, some of which I have outlined above that CAN dissuade an officer from doing to full impaired. Qualified is maybe not the correct word there.

I think we agree in principle, now we're just arguing semantics

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Ignore is also not the correct word. They make a conscious decision to not fulfill the obligations and duties bestowed on them.

I don't know if it's the correct word or not, but from my perspective, I do not approve of this sort of decision making. The law should be pretty cut and dry (OT, why marijuana should be decriminilized as well, since police do not actually enforce the law here either).

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I managed to find a great story by W5 broadcast about a year ago. It outlines many of the frustrations that both the public and police officers feel and that have been outlined in this thread.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0103?hub=WFive
(on the right hand side theres a 'video' link with part 1 and part 2.)
Enjoy.

Thanks for this, I read the article and I will check out the video.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by redforever

Well, I have 0% tolerance or patience when it comes to drunk drivers. And I don't care if I come off sounding holier than thou either. My daughter was hit by a drunk who ran a red light going full speed. Yeah, my daugher is alive although she did require extensive physio for a year as well as surgery. Yeah, the guy was young, he did plead guilty to spare my daughter a trial, and he actually did get a lot of punishment compared to some, and apparently has learned his lesson and turned his life around. But it might have taken my daughter's life to do that.

I have zero tolerance for saying, well, the education programs don't seem to be working, so let's subsidize some means of transit to get the drunks home. Sorry, that does not cut it for me and really, it will not work either. For one thing, not all the drunks live in a city large enough to even implement that kind of policy. What are you going to do in a smaller town, say the size of Okotoks, where taxis and public transit don't even exist. And why in the heck should drunks be coddled even further by putting them on the payroll of the public taxpayer.

Sorry to hear about your daughter

My question is, in this incident, we were talking about a a first time DD that has since learned his lesson, as you had said. If that is the case, arn't we trying to take that 1st time DD off the streets? That should be the goal. As I said, a DD doesn't get into his car with the idea that he's going to be an in accident, he gets into the car with the idea that he is going to make it home without the cops catching him and if so, the fine will be something slightly to near negligably different from the previous one (CC's plan). In fact, CC's plan only really deals with the situation after its happened, not before. If you had a loved one who was injured/klilled with a DD, wouldn't you want measures to prevent it from happening rather then letting it happen then punishing them? I don't get the logic there. (As I said, I've never been a DD myself unless you consider half a beer to be a DD. I don't talk on my cell either while I drive. I'm just trying to look at this from a logical POV.)

As for costs, I'd imagine they could run rapid with appeals given the f'ed up legal system we have where we appeal every ticket we get. Costs of the courts, costs of the cops who have to go through even more paperwork and are forced to go to more courts rather then doing their job. Something like auctioning off your car, that is definately going to go through the courts because its just plain ridiculous (why not force a large fine, and assets to be liquidated if the fine cannot be paid in cash?) and will definately be appealed. The overhead and implementation of this could be a disaster.

Again, there is a difference between prevention and (severe) punishment, and what is needed is prevention. Its not "coddling" and I can't see how anyone can possibly see it that way. Its prevention, its something that costs a little more to get prevent accidents such as your daughters.

Another idea is to make it more difficult to attain a drivers license, period. Long probation terms (i.e. 5 years) where any incident that pre-occupies (cell phone) or impairs (drinking, drugs) a driver will revolk his license, period. Rather then breathalysers, cars that require a license plate and even facial recognition of the driver in the drivers seat (if possible) for the engine to start, to take repeat offenders off the street.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by redforever

It will be when each and every one of you has had someone they love either hurt badly or killed by a drunk driver. I hope you don't have to experience that.

I'm glad my brother lived too.

What is a shame is that I was really good friends with the driver. Shortly after the accident I moved away for school, and now I've been back haven't really seen him at all. It was actually in this thread I learned he was still driving sauced. Makes me really mad.

[J pold]

I don't have time to read through this thread but I'll go on record as saying I've never had a DUI, nor have I ever been close to getting a DUI.

[Mr.Coffee]

Still don't see why nobody has responded to my solution? Install every single vehicle with a blow start mechanism.. done.. vehicle does not turn on if you are over the limit.

Pass legislation and subsidize manufacturers for the installation of the device on all new vehicles. Give people 6 months to a year to install on their own...

how expensive are these things anyway?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Still don't see why nobody has responded to my solution? Install every single vehicle with a blow start mechanism.. done.. vehicle does not turn on if you are over the limit.

Pass legislation and subsidize manufacturers for the installation of the device on all new vehicles. Give people 6 months to a year to install on their own...

how expensive are these things anyway?

KIDS: Mommy, why do you have to blow into the car to make it start?

MOM: Well kids, grown-ups are complete morons who think of nobody but themselves, especially when drinking alcohol. Then we completely disregard the safety and livelihoods of all the other Mommy's and Daddy's and little boys and girls that might be in cars on the road when we drive home drunk.

KIDS: But you tell us to be safe, kind, and responsible!!??

MOM: Do as I say, not as I do honey. This is Alberta, you can be a hypocrite when you're older.




Edit: Sorry, you asked for a response, and well, it was the best I could do on such short notice.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Still don't see why nobody has responded to my solution? Install every single vehicle with a blow start mechanism.. done.. vehicle does not turn on if you are over the limit.

Pass legislation and subsidize manufacturers for the installation of the device on all new vehicles. Give people 6 months to a year to install on their own...

how expensive are these things anyway?

I think cause its a pain in the ass for everyone to use one of these things. We live in a society where convenience and comfort trump all anyways.

[Mr.Coffee]

So it's inconvenient to install vehicles and have 0 drunk drivers but it's not inconvenient to "chance it" and have some drunk drivers, some people getting caught, the courts tied up with cases, jails with drunk drivers in them... potential fatalities on the streets.............

got it.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I think cause its a pain in the ass for everyone to use one of these things. We live in a society where convenience and comfort trump all anyways.

Except when it comes to going to the hospital.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

So it's inconvenient to install vehicles and have 0 drunk drivers but it's not inconvenient to "chance it" and have some drunk drivers, some people getting caught, the courts tied up with cases, jails with drunk drivers in them... potential fatalities on the streets.............

got it.

it's a waste of time because they could always get someone else to breathe into it anyway.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by habernac

it's a waste of time because they could always get someone else to breathe into it anyway.

The law would state that anyone who breathes into a drunk driver's car starter would be an accessory or maybe even equal to the driver in the event of something happening.

Or the car could be locked to certain DNA.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Still don't see why nobody has responded to my solution? Install every single vehicle with a blow start mechanism.. done.. vehicle does not turn on if you are over the limit.

Pass legislation and subsidize manufacturers for the installation of the device on all new vehicles. Give people 6 months to a year to install on their own...

how expensive are these things anyway?

It would be great in theory to do this but in reality it would be a nightmare to start up and even maintain.

Retrofitting every car in Canada with these things would take a whole lot longer than 6 months. Who is paying for the machines and the installation? If it is the government that is a huge cost. If it is the individual, many people can't afford to purchase them.

What happens if they malfunction? Now I can't drive my car because other idiots might drive drunk and I had to install some crappy breathalyzer?

We do have the concept of innocent until proven guilty and these machines seem to assume that everyone is guilty. I can't see anyway that installing these on every single car would come close to being legal.

I am not sure that DUI's are that high an occurance that the solution is to assume that everyone is a drunk and force them to pass a test everytime they drive.

I still don't understand why the police don't do more to stop it. Especially in a place like Lethbridge where it would be easy to set up check stops on the high traffic areas.

Even if they don't catch everyone if people start seeing the checkstops on a regular basis it puts a lot more fear in them than the threat of jail for 5 years or lose of license on the .0000000005% chance they get caught AND convicted.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

The law would state that anyone who breathes into a drunk driver's car starter would be an accessory or maybe even equal to the driver in the event of something happening.

Or the car could be locked to certain DNA.

They can't even catch the drunks as it is now they will catch people blowing into to breathalyzers? I don't think so.

Cars now can only be driven by one person now? or at least started by them?

Again nice in theory no way is it practical.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

So it's inconvenient to install vehicles and have 0 drunk drivers but it's not inconvenient to "chance it" and have some drunk drivers, some people getting caught, the courts tied up with cases, jails with drunk drivers in them... potential fatalities on the streets.............

got it.

Installing a device like this on 15 million cars wouldn't be merely "inconvenient", it would be astronomically expensive, it would make the gun registry look like a Red Army powerplay, and it quite simply would be impossible to do.

Never mind those pesky buzzwords like "privacy" and "freedom" that some hippie would bring up.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by moon

It would be great in theory to do this but in reality it would be a nightmare to start up and even maintain.

Retrofitting every car in Canada with these things would take a whole lot longer than 6 months. Who is paying for the machines and the installation? If it is the government that is a huge cost. If it is the individual, many people can't afford to purchase them.

If it's longer then 6 months, give it as long as you think we'll need. 2 years? 5 years?

If we can figure out a way to make these things cheap (assuming of course they are in fact expensive in the first place), I think it would be a great solution.

Originally Posted by moon

What happens if they malfunction? Now I can't drive my car because other idiots might drive drunk and I had to install some crappy breathalyzer?

What happens if your engine malfunctions? What happens if your tires malfunction, or your brakes, or your power steering........ try to think of it as just another part to the car.

Originally Posted by moon

We do have the concept of innocent until proven guilty and these machines seem to assume that everyone is guilty. I can't see anyway that installing these on every single car would come close to being legal.

Don't like this argument. It's not guilty until proven innocent, it's about prevention. Why do people wear condoms? Or seatbelts? It's called safety, not 'guilty until proven innocent'.

Originally Posted by moon

I am not sure that DUI's are that high an occurance that the solution is to assume that everyone is a drunk and force them to pass a test everytime they drive.

I agree, I dont think it's as big a deal as people are making it out to be. But if it is a big problem, I like my solution.

Originally Posted by moon

I still don't understand why the police don't do more to stop it. Especially in a place like Lethbridge where it would be easy to set up check stops on the high traffic areas.

Even if they don't catch everyone if people start seeing the checkstops on a regular basis it puts a lot more fear in them than the threat of jail for 5 years or lose of license on the .0000000005% chance they get caught AND convicted.

Agreed.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Installing a device like this on 15 million cars wouldn't be merely "inconvenient", it would be astronomically expensive, it would make the gun registry look like a Red Army powerplay, and it quite simply would be impossible to do.

Never mind those pesky buzzwords like "privacy" and "freedom" that some hippie would bring up.

Yeah, I think cost is the biggest obstacle... but nobody here seems to know how much these puppies actually cost anyway.. so who knows.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

What happens if your engine malfunctions? What happens if your tires malfunction, or your brakes, or your power steering........ try to think of it as just another part to the car.

Just on this little bit, they're different in terms of reliability. If those breathalizers use the technology I'm thinking they're using, they may be alot more unreliable, especially for temperature tolerances. Things like engines, brakes, power streering are a known technology that has been robustly tested over many years. This is something that will take time to work the kinks out of, especially if it uses more exotic technology.

Plus the cost of educating people as to why its getting installed, I definately see this as a gun registry nightmare. As I said, people are just too lazy to allow things like this to change how they do what they do. Convenience in our society is more important then safety in North America as I said before, and we've seen many examples of it.