Man Killed Avoiding RIDE Spotcheck
- Thread starter Kilgore Trout
- Start date
So if you blow .01 they take away your car? You live in a strange fantasy land don't you fuji. The problem is there's no way for anyone to know or accurately measure exactly how much alcohol is in their bloodstream. An approximation maybe but what you're proposing is so completely unrealistic. The problem is alcohol is metabolized at the rate of .015 of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) every hour. Without knowing exactly what your BAC was when you stop drinking you don't know exactly how long you have to wait before your BAC get to exactly .00 which is why you are allowed to have a small amount in your system.
In a perfect world, drivers would have a zero BAC when behind the wheel but we don't live in a perfect world which is why there are limits. There has to be a bit of a margin for error.
I'm not condoning drinking and driving, just saying zero BAC is completely unrealistic.
As a side note, I wonder how many people drive when taking legally prescribed meds which can also impair your ability to operate a vehicle? Probably a bigger problem than one would think.
The police generally do that. When you come around a corner or over a hill to the point where you can see RIDE stop, the side street at that point is the one the cops site at and they do stop everyone that turns onto the side street.
Can’t see the RIDE were the cops tried to stop this young guy until you come around the corner on the QEW off ramp to Hurontario. He had no where to go but forward. Expect he was running traffic lights as there are about 5 traffic lights between the QEW and were he crashed at Dundas.
That is what the data supports doing, based on the average harm done by people who drive after having a single drink. The harm done is in the ballpark of a typical car's value.
It's reasonable to give people the benefit of the doubt if the measurement cannot be made accurately. Public policy should be zero. How close to zero we can get then becomes a question of what sort of accuracy the police can prove in court.
Technology will improve. The law should specify zero with it being a valid defense that a reading is within the margin of error of zero.
1) The guy may have had a warrant out for him. 2) You don't have to answer questions at a RIDE stop (best to do if you're sober). "Where you coming from/heading to" - "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" 3) You don't have to partake in field sobriety tests (stupid coordination tests that sober people can fail). Videos online are available of DUI refusals at 'checkpoints' people video record in the USA. In Canada we're too polite to not comply with police.
The circumstances create the reaction. You are dealing with people with impaired judgement, in case you didn't notice, people behave differently when drunk.
How was this data collected? Are you telling me they know each person's BAC when they had an accident after having one drink? They would've had to have tested these people after consuming a drink, got in their car, had the accident, wait for Police to arrive, take them to a the station and test them all within an hour to determine their BAC? I find that very hard to believe.
That's not going to happen. There's too many people in Government who like to have a drink with dinner and drive home for them to ever change the law to zero tolerance. You think the courts are backed up now, just imagine what they'd be like with zero tolerance. Totally absurd proposition.
I hope all of FUJI's mouthwashes don't have any alcohol in them or those of his favourite ladies for that matter. Wouldn't want anyone to blow over .01 and get suspended.
We don't know yet if the driver was driving drunk, he was just fleeing a police checkpoint.
If you guys have been giving Rob Ford the benefit of doubt for all these months, you should do so here as well.
If you guys have been giving Rob Ford the benefit of doubt for all these months, you should do so here as well.
It's not a silly proposition but then again, it's not like a formula one track where we need things to break and absorb energy. Street lights are made to last without costly maintenance, etc.Are you serious?
Most people don't flee a RIDE stop because they are late for an appointment. He may not have been drunk but it's pretty clear he thought he would blow over. Then again it could have been that last bong hit that was on his mind.
Before someone takes your advice literally. Refusal to take a BAC test in most jurisdictions, including Ontario, results in an automatic license suspension. In many jurisdictions the consequences of refusing to test are deliberately the same as though your BAC showed you where close to death from alcohol poisoning.
It's got nothing to do with Rob Ford nor is there an analogy of any sort.
This guy was pissed and/or simply unlawful. He got what he deserved, and thankfully, he didn't hurt anybody. What he did was criminal ("just fleeing a police checkpoint" - are you fucking nuts?). We don't need him on the road if he disobeys even a police check point.
I think that's crazy. One drink of wine with a meal or two won't impair you, especially if the time involved is over several hours and you also drink water, etc. etc.
I've admitted to wine with a meal at check points but was allowed to carry on (once was asked to blow and registered 0.00) because I didn't reek of alcohol or drive impaired.
However, if they can get breathalyzers into all cars such that you can hold off from driving or take a cab, I would welcome that, only that these devices might be subject to re-calibration over time, and this might require new regulations.
