Ontario Bill 203-Blowing A Warning Over .05

[fuji]

these laws are BS, ive seen people drive after 5 beers and they drove fine

Correction, they APPEARED to drive fine, probably because no sudden major event happened that required quick thinking and fast reflexes. Driving is 99.9% boring and automatic, and 0.1% terrifying.

People who are super drunk fuck up the 99% bit but we also don't want people on the road if they've had enough to drink that they fuck up the 0.1% either. This is where I suspect your friend with five drinks would have fucked up and killed someone, and why he actually ought to have gone to jail for getting behind the wheel that day.

For every actual accident there are probably 10 more that were averted by a quick thinking driver with fast reflexes.

but ive witnessed people driving after no sleep, because they work two jobs and go from one job to the other, and can honestly say driving without proper sleep is 10 times more dangerous than drinking & driving.

No disagreement from me on that--sleepy people should not be driving either.

 

[fuji]

Here's something I don't get:

Some people come on here and say they, or their friend, had five drinks and drove fine some day, and then expect us to believe anything else they say after admitting that.

Never minding what you think of the limits you KNOW what the laws are, and you KNOW what it's going to do to your life if you get caught. Even if you disagree with the law opening yourself up to the drunk driving charge, permanently losing your license, and winding up with a severe criminal record--which you WILL get--means that you are a fucking idiot.

Why would I believe a fucking idiot?

 

[S.C. Joe]

Alcohol makes one need MORE sleep to feel as rested compare to those who have no alcohol...that goes for in their fat cells too were it builds up just like with any other drugs.

The only thing I don't like is how not everybody is tested, its just random and by chance some get caught...unless they hurt or kill somebody.

Other things..like having a 24 hour TTC would help cut down on people driving around impaired...cheaper rates for taxis late at night--the governments can spend money on road side test sites, let them help lower cab fares so more will use cabs...but no, since they can not "make money" like with a road site check point were the impair drivers get fine, subsidizing cab fares never happens.

Then there is highway improvements, better lighting, wider roads, better markings and signs...all cost money.

The "best" thing to happen to save lives was that high gasoline prices last summer, people drove less and car pooled more...in the USA traffic deaths went way down too, so it wasn't Ontario stunt driving law some were giving credit to.

 

[JohnLarue]

The drinking and driving laws should be used to prevent incoherent drunks who can not stand from driving.
I can understand the anguish and absolute outrage of a parent or loved one who has lost someone close because of a drunk driver.

However this is becoming too extreme.
I would like to be able to enjoy one, two, maybe even three beers (again moderation and responsibility) over a two hour period when I meet with people I like or while on the golf course without having to worry that I might be crucified.

I will support the current level 0.08, but this latest change is overboard.
I believe there are far more terrible drivers who can not drive sober & never should have received a license. (You know who they are, as they have cut you off on the freeway & still do not realize what they have done)
They are a danger with any booze in them
Better to change their behavior than destroying good drivers who have three beers at the golf course.

 

[fuji]

I would like to be able to enjoy one, two, maybe even three beers (again moderation and responsibility) over a two hour period when I meet with people I like or while on the golf course without having to worry that I might be crucified.

If you spend two hours playing golf over which time you have a drinks each hour I can't see how you would be over either limit. Assuming you're an average sized guy you'll have completely metabolized the first drink and you'll have the equivalent of one drink in you when you get in the car.

If you have the third one it comes with the price of having to hang out for an extra hour afterwards before driving as getting in a car with the equivalent of two in you is liable to push you over the lower limit and might even push you over the higher one too, depending.

What's the problem here?

You mentioned some other unrelated problems with other drivers on the road, such as people who aren't competent to drive in any condtition and shouldn't really have licenses and honestly I see those other problems as real problems too--but completely independent of this issue and so not relevant here.

 

[tboy]

Fuji: The problem here is people NEED to drink. They NEED to feel the effects of alcohol in their system and they NEED a crutch in order to meet a certain social standard. Sorry, if anyone NEEDs something they have a problem.

I gave up drinking 13 yrs ago. Not because I had a problem, but due to physical/health issues that alcohol irritated. Since I've stopped I've come to realize that all those drinkers that think it is SO "cool" to be under the influence don't realize what total asses they are. Now I can totally understand someone coming home after a hard day's work and wanting a drink to help them relax. Go ahead, have at it where you cannot harm anyone other than yourself by your actions.

I've also seen people who think they are 100% perfectly ok after 1 drink. They aren't. The second you start digesting alcohol it affects you. With some, it may be small, but with most, you can immediately notice a slurring of speech, a preponderance to laugh a little more, etc.

I will repeat: if you need to have a glass of wine with dinner, if you need to have a beer on the golf course, if you need a drink in order to have a good time, you've got a problem.

Anyone has a choice: drink, or drive. NOT both. There is NO valid reason that someone MUST drink and drive. It is purely by choice and frankly, if you choose to endanger other drivers, you deserve what you get if you get caught.

Yeah Fuji, those that CHOOSE to drink and drive ALWAYS refer to "other drivers" that are more dangerous than they are. You're right, that issue is totally independant of the drinking issue and if you talk to any cop: bad drivers ALWAYS say "other drivers are worse than they are..." well you know what? Other drivers are saying the same thing about them!

In addition: I think if you don't learn by the first 2 times you're caught blowing a warning, you should lose your licence forever. Not for 30 days. It is obvious that you can't control yourself and won't learn. I also LOVE to hear of people going to court after getting caught saying the reason they should keep their licence is because they: need to drive their kids around, need to earn a living because they're a salesman, need it for x y and z. Well, if you NEED your licence for those reasons, you wouldn't have had a few drinks and drove. Obviously your need to have a few was more important that your need to earn a living, drive your kids, etc.

 

[jeezy]

liquor is your friend, you gotta apperciate it, you need liquor at night clubs, because combined with the music it helps you relax, plus its much easier to get laid when a girl is a drunk at a club.

 

[Remo]

Does BAC actually measure "impairment"? I personally don't disagree with these rules but I've always wondered about this anyway. What about people who drive after a few drinks all the time? Do they develop compensatory skills? Does a certain BAC level affect all people equally in terms of neuro-muscular impairment?

I've never known, so I don't ever drink within a couple of hours before driving. Or I won't drive at all if I've drank a lot. Again, often I don't feel impaired at all, but I don't know what I would blow.

 

[JohnLarue]

If you spend two hours playing golf over which time you have a drinks each hour I can't see how you would be over either limit. Assuming you're an average sized guy you'll have completely metabolized the first drink and you'll have the equivalent of one drink in you when you get in the car.

If you have the third one it comes with the price of having to hang out for an extra hour afterwords before driving as getting in a car with the equivalent of two in you is liable to push you over the lower limit and might even push you over the higher one too, depending.

What's the problem here?

You mentioned some other unrelated problems with other drivers on the road, such as people who aren't competent to drive in any condition and shouldn't really have licenses and honestly I see those other problems as real problems too--but completely independent of this issue and so not relevant here.

The problem is this is one more step towards the ultimate goal of organizations such as MADD.
That goal is zero tolerance. Your kidding yourself if you think that will not happen

With zero tolerance, you have a beer & drive then you will get your license pulled, perhaps your livelihood taken away & be put into the poor house because of insurance costs

The other problem is if I have that third beer (after two hours), then there is the uncertainty & I get royally screwed because some one picked a number.

In the past I have consumed 6 beers & asked a police officer to administer the test to see if I was fine. 0.00 was the result, so I was surprised but able to drive
Other times two beers made me feel quite unsteady. So I did not drive period.
It very much depends on metabolism at that particular time & there is always doubt.
Relying on your rules of thumb could cost me dearly
Bottom line I am responsible, but now the rules have changed again
Its a slippery slope which will end with zero tolerance

As far as other drivers who cant drive not being related.
If the goal is to make the roads safer than it is very relevant.

If the goal is to crucify anyone who has a drink (maybe two) & drives then it is not relevant, however , then the goal is targeting a behavior which many feel is acceptable (within realistic limits) but a select & vocal few do not feel is acceptable. Is there another motivating factor rather than just making the roads safer?

 

[SaturnFan]

The laws should be changed so that all forms of impairment, whether from alcohol consumption, drugs, or lack of sleep should be prosecuted in a similar fashion.

 

[JohnLarue]

I will repeat: if you need to have a glass of wine with dinner, if you need to have a beer on the golf course, if you need a drink in order to have a good time, you've got a problem.

.

Oh great, an expert reformer who relates his past experince as being the standard for everyone.

Not a snowballs chance in hell that anyone else might be able to say no at anytime to a drink with dinner or a beer on the golf course?

If I happen to enjoy a couple of beers on a blistering hot day at the golf course , then I have a problem?

I dont think so.

If someone can not golf without a beer then they may have a problem
If they can not attend a social function without driking then maybe there is a problem
If drinking affects ones work, health or relationships there may be a problem, but it is not as cut a dry as you indicate

 

[LAS0023]

Fuji: The problem here is people NEED to drink. They NEED to feel the effects of alcohol in their system and they NEED a crutch in order to meet a certain social standard. Sorry, if anyone NEEDs something they have a problem.

You really are a jackass. Just because someone has a glass of wine at dinner or while at a bar with friends has a couple of beers it doesn't mean they need the drink as a "crutch to meet a certain social standard."

 

[Malibook]

You really are a jackass. Just because someone has a glass of wine at dinner or while at a bar with friends has a couple of beers it doesn't mean they need the drink as a "crutch to meet a certain social standard."

Hey, take it easy with that rational thinking.

That sort of shit gives Tboy a major headache.

 

[thompo69]

You really are a jackass. Just because someone has a glass of wine at dinner or while at a bar with friends has a couple of beers it doesn't mean they need the drink as a "crutch to meet a certain social standard."

True. But if they can afford the drinks, they can afford the cab home.

 

[JohnHenry]

It depends on your weight and gender. According to this calculator a 190 lb man can drink three beers in one hour and still be under .05. I stick to the one light (4%) beer per hour rule and have never had a problem.

http://www.insure.com/articles/carinsurance/blood-alcohol-calculator.html

Edit: That calculator is for American beer. 3 American beers = 2 Canadian (5%) beers.

The site says a 12 oz bottle of beer contains .54 oz of alcohol. That is 4% alcohol by WEIGHT (how beer is labeled in the US) and exactly the same as 5% alcohol by VOLUME as labeled in Canada

 

[enduser1]

Driving is not a right.

Actually in the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms mobility is a right. There are many parts of this country where there is little or no public transportation. Someday a judge with a brain is going to throw out these new regulations when he or she realizes that they are an infringement of the basic right to mobility of every Canadian.

EU

 

[tboy]

You really are a jackass. Just because someone has a glass of wine at dinner or while at a bar with friends has a couple of beers it doesn't mean they need the drink as a "crutch to meet a certain social standard."

And you have to learn reading comp: I specifically said "NEED". it is a CHOICE that one makes and if it becomes having to choose between having a glass of wine with dinner and taking a cab or having a soft drink or non-alcoholic drink with dinner and driving, it is a choice.

The point you all miss is that you DO NOT NEED TO CONSUME ALCOHOL. You may WANT to, you may ENJOY it, but again, that is a CHOICE.

The funny thing is you all fail to realize that.

You also fail to realize that rules change all the time. I bet most of the people against this new law applaud the new anti-smoking laws. At one point we were allowed to smoke in hospitals, restaurants, bars, offices, clubs. At least you still have the OPTION to drink.....Now if we want to smoke we have to go outside or be fined $5000.00. Now if you want a drink, you have to take a cab. Cry me a river........

Go back to my posts on those threads: I specifically said, "wait until they come after something YOU enjoy" and sure enough, here they are. Going after drinking and sure enough, everyone is bitching about it. Welcome to the club!!! lol.....

 

[Cycleguy007]

I really can't stand the "charity" organization known as MADD. Aside from their accounting practices... they are rather vigilant in there dealings.

First, let me say I never drive "impaired". Never have, never will. I have however driven after a couple drinks. A glass of wine with dinner and maybe a cocktail... give me a break. THAT contrary to what MADD would have us believe is NOT impaired.

MADD has some rather ruthless tactics. They called me for a "donation" a couple years ago... The woman at the other end of the phone went through her shpeal... and when she was finished, I simply explained that I wasn't interested in giving her a donation, she said (and I quote), "oh, so I guess you are in favour of dunk drivers then." WHAT?????

 

[fuji]

Fuji: The problem here is people NEED to drink. They NEED to feel the effects of alcohol in their system and they NEED a crutch in order to meet a certain social standard. Sorry, if anyone NEEDs something they have a problem.

Well I wouldn't want to judge because I've certainly had my own share of long drunken nights out, and I enjoy having a few drinks with my friends too.

The difference is I either only have one, or I wait long enough to metabolize it (using the hour per drink rule of thumb) or I decide (sometimes plan) that I'm not going to be driving home.

I have no sympathy for people who break these rules--they are the rules, everyone knows them, even if you don't agree with them you're a fucking idiot if you open yourself up to the possibility of the a DUI charge ruining your life.

 

[thompo69]

Actually in the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms mobility is a right. There are many parts of this country where there is little or no public transportation. Someday a judge with a brain is going to throw out these new regulations when he or she realizes that they are an infringement of the basic right to mobility of every Canadian.

EU

You might want to actually read s.6 of the Charter before suggesting it applies to driving, as it clearly doesn't.