Not in the same proportion. Drunk drivers are involved in several TIMES more accidents per capita than non drunks, and by a very large margin.People with 0.00 also cause a serious number of deaths and horrific accidents.
I know drunks do cause more accidents percapita, but how drunk and what is the extent. That is my point. You have not been able to point to any precise and high quality data that properly defines the problem, its onset and the extent. Its not a binary problem like "guns kill" . Alcohol also places a massive burden on our health system. According to the CURRENT law I am not a drunk driver, so you can add that to your litany of lies.Not in the same proportion. Drunk drivers are involved in several TIMES more accidents per capita than non drunks, and by a very large margin.
I don't think you comprehend how badly you are losing this argument. ALL the data refutes you. Even your own links turned out to destroy your claims.
Clearly you are a drunk driver who refuses to accept the facts.
Every time you make a posting, you show how hair brained your ideas and beliefs are.Private businesses already do that. They are not supposed to serve intoxicated people. In the scope of operating a bar, you think the cost of the machine is really that significant? Walking is not always possible, calling a taxi..well not everyone has the cash and they won't take drunk people quite often, and call a friend? I guess not everyone has friends that are as tolerant as you. I will be happy to call you when I have drinks and cannot drive, just PM me your number. I don't oppose some of the programs BC has in place, and I would like to see how they gathered their stats. Its very easy to fudge the numbers to claim victory. If you ask me the REAL reason why BC highway fatalites have dropped so much is the redevelopment of the highway infrastructure for the Olympics. I understand intent is not necessary for a crime, but people should be give more tools as the current ones are clearly not enough. I don't see why you would be so against drunk driving and yet be so opposed to giving people another tool to verify their status before driving.?? But any law that allows police to hand out suspensions of 90 days without judicial review is not acceptable to me. Too many moronic cops out there to be trusted. 24 hour sure. But 90 days has serious consequences and should only be handed out after people are offered a right to trial.
We have good, hard, high quality data that horrific numbers of deaths result from people driving with 0.08 to 0.14 BAC, yet you argued we should reduce the penalties.I know drunks do cause more accidents percapita, but how drunk and what is the extent. That is my point. You have not been able to point to any precise and high quality data that properly defines the problem, its onset and the extent. Its not a binary problem like "guns kill" . Alcohol also places a massive burden on our health system. According to the CURRENT law I am not a drunk driver, so you can add that to your litany of lies.
Ahh, I see.In the warn range you don't get a criminal record.
No you are being a hypocrite. Women you may never meet are suffering horrendously because of the demand you create for paid sex.The question is whether anyone on terb is a hypocrite for judging people who drive drunk. Terb is not a forum devoted to murder and enslavement.
Give it up, your pathetic defence of drunk driving is now causing you to say ridiculous things.
It's a good thing the OP has been dealt with by the authorities before he hurt anyone. Lives were likely saved by the police here--the guy showed no remorse. He likely had done it before and would have kept on driving drunk is they hadn't caught him.
A 5x increase of a very low probability event is not significant. For example, if your chances of winning 6/49 were increased 5x, I doubt you would invest your net worth on tickets. On top of all of that, the data is simply not trustworthy for the reasons I laid out.You've lost. You have conceded that even 0.01 BAC significantly increases the risk of fatalities and serious injuries. You have abandoned false claims above and been forced to admit that drunk drivers between .008 and .014 cause a very large share of the fatalities on the road.
Your claim about the night falls absolutely flat since day or night it's clearly drunks that are causing the crashes
You're done. You have no point left.
You have been reduced to the PATHETIC claim that a5x increase in fatalities is no big deal. Fuck that. If you put these statements into actions as I suspect you do, and drive around drunk on a regular basis, then you are a felon. You belong in prison, you have no respect for the lives of other people.
I pointed out all the reasons why the data is not trustworthy, you just blather on relying on that hype. You really put the ass in bombast.We have good, hard, high quality data that horrific numbers of deaths result from people driving with 0.08 to 0.14 BAC, yet you argued we should reduce the penalties.
We have good, hard, high quality data that between 0.01 BAC and 0.08 drink drivers kill significantly more people than other (from NHTSA) and that they are much more likely to be solely to blame (the study I linked).
Versus all this good hard data you have nothing but bombast.
Do you also believe manslaughter is identical to murder? Or that assault is just as bad as assault with a weapon or rape? Is going 50km/h over the speed limit no worse than 10km/h over the speed limit?I don't understand any arguments regarding levels of impairment.... Should be just one law. You drink...NO DRIVING PERIOD.
False.No you are being a hypocrite. Women you may never meet are suffering horrendously because of the demand you create for paid sex.
Nope. You made claims about the data that were false. There's no problem with the NHTSA data which showed that drunk driving is a huge problem.I pointed out all the reasons why the data is not trustworthy, you just blather on relying on that hype. You really put the ass in bombast.
It's really easy for me. If I had to drive to get there , meaning I will have to drive to go home, I don't drink. I'm totally sober at that time.here is the issue at the core of drinking and driving.
We can discuss BAC levels, this that and the other thing. This is all semantics as far as I'm concerned.
The underlying issue, which some posters here will never understand, is the self discipline part of this. Your gonna gets lots of people like Fuji who think black and white with the attitude "it's easy to make the right decision and not drink and drive". This couldn't be farther from the truth, which is why this the most common law broken today in our society. This is for various different reasons that can get quite deep.
1) part of the problem is, once your impaired, not only is your driving impaired, but your ability to make the right decisions is impaired. This is an extension of the fact that society has legalized a drug, and now try and force people who become addicted to that drug to make right choices. Try telling a crack "don't do crack and drive".
2) People who get behind the wheel while being over the limit, don't think they are really doing anything wrong because there is no bad intent. It's not like the person who makes a conscious decision to go rob someone, rape someone, steal, ect. ect. For the most part, good people making a bad decisions, and the penalty is way more severe because some of the POSSIBLE OUTCOMES of doing this (I. E Marco Muzzo). So even though we all know the consequences of drinking and driving, the thought process is:
"It won 't happen to me. I can handle my alcohol", "I only take back streets", "I'm not going far" and million other reasons. They convince themselves what they are doing is not that bad, because they have no bad intentions, and it won't be them that kills a family.
Now we're in this sitution where impaired driving cost the tax payers more money than it would if we just gave them a free uber ride. The amount of resources we pay for the police to operate programs like "RIDE" (which in my opinion, it a complete joke,despite the fact that's how the OP was caught), paying crown prosacuters, the problems it's causing clogging up the courts, All this money going into this, and it's still doesn't work. It's time we start thinking of different solutions to the problem other than "if you drink, don't drive". I don't know what the answer is, but the current system is working, and many people just don't get the fact that despite that it's not hard for them to make the right choice, it's very difficult for others. This is pretty much an epidemic when you consider it's by far the most common crime committed in Canada, and considering 1/100th of the people doing it get caught.
It's time to starting thinking out of the box and come up with alternative solutions and ideas.
Hence the reason I get so annoyed when all these guys who just have to tell the OP what horrible he is, kick him while he's down, and explain how they would never do such a thing, all the while committing a crime themselves by paying to see escorts not to mention if they get caught how much it would devastate their family and kids. Would they be dead? No. Would it have life long consequences? Yup.
The two are not the same, I know this and I get it. My point being, don't be so quick to judge morals without looking in the mirror, and time for us as society to figure out better ways to deter this epidemic.
And this is exactly the point your not understanding. It's not easy for hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, which is why it's time for a different approach.It's really easy for ME.
Some people will always have zero tolerance for drinking and driving. Others make a distinction between one drink, two drink, three drinks, drunk. I fall into the latter category. Any drinking is going to impair your driving, but there are acceptable levels of impairment, and not just when it comes to drinking. Are you having a bad day? Something on your mind? How tired are you? Is it raining out? Should we only drive when we're in a good mood, focused, well rested, and it's sunny outside?And this is exactly the point your not understanding. It's not easy for hundreds of thousands of people, if not more, which is why it's time for a different approach.
I'm talking about deterrents as opposed ads saying "don't do it" and RIDE. I'm talking about like programs that will come pick you up for free if you call them and tell them your impaired. I know, can't put taxi and uber out of business, I'm just saying this continues to be an epidemic and we need to start thinking outside the box.Some people will always have zero tolerance for drinking and driving. Others make a distinction between one drink, two drink, three drinks, drunk. I fall into the latter category. Any drinking is going to impair your driving, but there are acceptable levels of impairment, and not just when it comes to drinking. Are you having a bad day? Something on your mind? How tired are you? Is it raining out? Should we only drive when we're in a good mood, focused, well rested, and it's sunny outside?
While I'd tweak the current laws a bit, I think they're pretty close to the sweet spot right now. You will never completely legislate out fatalities by drunk driving, no matter what the legal limit is. You hear stories all the time about people driving who are three times over the limit (which is unbelievable). Those people need to be nailed to the cross much hard than someone how blows a 0.08.
