i think it would be ironic if we were all made of iron.
I guess that’s also a ferric sample
No. The cause is clearly different although the outcome is the same. I don’t equate “very tired person who is driving” with “person who drinks past a certain BAC and then drives”. I’d call the former negligent, the latter willing. [/quote]
Actually, I didn’t say “very tired”, I said “sleep deprived.” Someone who only slept 3 hours the night before is almost always aware of that fact. Once they willingly get behind the wheel, why do you put them in a different category than someone who recently used alcohol?
While we’re at it, there are several medications that can also impair one’s ability to drive; do you support similar penalties for users of, say, Benadryl if it is ever shown to have a comparable effect on safety as .08 BAC?
I guess that would make us irony.
Agreed. I favor protecting people’s rights and the presumption of innocence, but after conviction I favor fairly harsh punishments.
Nope. No passes for anybody. First timers even have to get that interlock ignition device, which is so expensive and humiliating to have installed that most people just don’t bother to get their license back for two or three years, as if you wait longer you don’t have to do it. So, essentially, you get a two-year suspension, minimum, for a first offense now.
But what really gets me are the penalties before an impaired driver has even been convicted. I can understand an immediate license suspension for 24 hours if the guy fails a breathalyzer, because he could be a danger to the public, but 90 days with no recourse to appeal? Before a conviction has even been registered? And seizing the car as well? What if other members of the family need the vehicle for work?
And as I said at the end of the post, MADD is pressuring the Ontario gov’t here to crank up the penalties even further. It’s really, really crazy. I pretty much stopped drinking when I left university anyways, but these days I won’t have even a single drink when I go out, if I’m driving. And that, to me, is totally, completely fucked. I should be able to drive to a restaurant and enjoy a nice glass of wine or a beer or two during dinner and not have to worry about nudging that ridiculously low .08.
Like the lawyer said in his rant, though, it’s presumed guilty with impaired driving these days. I used to cover court when I was a reporter in the late 80s and early 90s when the MADD hysteria really got going, and I was amazed how the impaired drivers (and I’m talking about guys caught at .085 at checkpoints, not those involved in accidents) were often read the riot act by the judge while scumbags up for far more serious crimes like beating their wives into the hospital got the kid-glove “everybody’s innocent until proven guilty” treatment.
Not sure if this is a typo or not, but to put some of these numbers in perspective, that’s 2.5 times LD50. 0.10% BAC is 1/4 LD50.[/quote]
Whoops! :oops: Yeah I guess anyone who can survive having 1% of his body fluid being alcohol is certainly a bad ass. :P A little transposition there, I meant 0.1%.
You’re right, it has. Even in raw numbers of accidents, it has declined drastically. My mistake, but good news! :)
If such a thing is shown, then yes partially. DUI is “driving under the influence”, and I consider “the influence” to mean the influence of any drugs (whether legal OTCs, alcohol, or illicit) that impair driving ability. That said, alcohol is really a recreational drug. So penalties while killing or maiming someone else under “recreational” influence instead of “prescribed” influence is surely a different animal.
Someone who is on five bottles of NyQuil and kills someone while driving surely deserves at least the same “manslaughter due to criminal negligence” style charge. Absolutely.
I view drinking as a recreational, non-required activity just like illicit drug use, as opposed to negligence.
Just to play devil’s advocate, Brent, were all those drunk guys in court guilty? I imagine the number of people arrested for soliciting a prostitute who are actually innocent approaches zero, for example; how about DUI?
List of limits per country
.08? Damn drunkard Canadians. In my country, it’s a fourth of that.
We don’t have those kinds of penalties, though.
Jason: Hookers don’t blow for just ANY methyl group, but breathalyzers do.
Here’s a story I saw today: Drink-driver, 13, did 70mph in stolen car going the wrong way. Just since we have a thread on the topic.
Although seriously, what is up with the British spelling? He hit a kerb and popped a tyre while drink-driving? :P
You know that guy would so rule to party with.
Bah. He’d be so busy with his english spellings that he’d totally fall behind in the witty banter department. What use is a drunk if he’s not entertaining?